|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
It may also be related to google forcing the federalist to shut down their comments section due to how racist it was.
(There was an initially inaccurate report stating that google ads wouldn't run any ads. Apparently, it was actually "you have 3 days to take comment section down or get demonetized").
I'll say Hawley's not totally wrong in pointing out some hypocrisy here, but google doesn't really host a lot of user content in the way of comments sections (ad policy =/= legal stance is where his argument falls apart).
(Hawley already introduced legislation about it that I have yet to read up on. )
Writeup on it is here :
https://www.axios.com/hawley-unveils-bill-targeting-big-techs-shield-b225c52b-35e2-4392-b11a-afda6357e35f.html
.... I don't think that would go the way he wants (lets users sue for selective censorship)
|
I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion.
Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these.
|
On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these. If a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, why shouldn't google be allowed to refuse neo-nazi's from the advertisement platform?
|
Because discriminating against gays is what the bible says, while the bible doesn't say anything about nazis, and at least they are for law and order.
That being said, i am still generally in favor of regulating the big tech companies a bit more, especially related to stuff like privacy. I just don't think the Trump administration could do anything useful there, and would definitively try to use any attempt to push through some fascist bullshit that gives them more power to control content to make sure only goodthink is published.
|
On June 18 2020 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these. If a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, why shouldn't google be allowed to refuse neo-nazi's from the advertisement platform?
The baker has comparable alternatives, Google does not.
|
On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these.
Ah, I forgot about Youtube. To be fair, youtube could get rid of its comment section and lose nothing of any value. Google is definitely being hypocritical here, but it's from very different departments of people (and last I checked, being a hypocrite isn't a legal risk).
On June 18 2020 03:24 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these. If a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, why shouldn't google be allowed to refuse neo-nazi's from the advertisement platform? The baker has comparable alternatives, Google does not.
True, but that's a monopoly issue, not a free speech issue. I'd be all up for busting up google and amazon.
|
On June 18 2020 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these. If a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, why shouldn't google be allowed to refuse neo-nazi's from the advertisement platform?
This is purely for giving the anti-monopoly crowd a boost. It’s not my policy preference, and I’m not a Hawley guy. I’m a political observer as well as advocating my own political philosophy, so the “should” here is directed against other people’s policies that Google should fear.
|
On June 18 2020 03:24 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these. If a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, why shouldn't google be allowed to refuse neo-nazi's from the advertisement platform? The baker has comparable alternatives, Google does not.
Folks who fought against public accommodation laws banning discrimination at restaurants and hotels tried that same tack, and it didn’t work luckily. I can see the allure of it, but it sure turns a blind eye to the possibility that there are enough LGBTQ country folk wanting to get a wedding cake such that there truly is no alternative for many.
|
On June 18 2020 03:24 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these. If a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, why shouldn't google be allowed to refuse neo-nazi's from the advertisement platform? The baker has comparable alternatives, Google does not.
Amazon, Microsoft there are other ppc platforms out there google is far from the only game in town for that. Many more once you move out of a US centric world view.
Funny how the right claims to be all about markets and deregulation but some reason when the markets don't support them, they immediately claim for regulation. "I'm allowed to do w.e i want and say what ever i want that's freedom of speech and people deserve it when i do it, but if someone else does that it's oppression"
|
Google did the same to tl. Had to close the nsfw threads to get the google ads revenues iirc
|
Annnnd the shitshow starts. Excerpts has started being published here and there in newspapers from the Bolton book :
Bolton’s book also goes through a litany of what Trump does not know about the world – that Britain had nuclear weapons of its own, for example, or that Finland was not part of Russia.
Trump also refused to issue a statement commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
“That was 15 years ago,” he told Bolton (it was the 30th anniversary). “Who cares about it? I’m trying to make a deal. I don’t want anything,” Trump said, according to Bolton’s account.
According to excerpts published by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Washington Post, Bolton describes a pattern of corruption in which Trump routinely attempts to use the leverage of US power on other countries to his own personal ends.
“The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Bolton writes, adding that he took his concerns to the attorney general, William Barr.
The anecdote involving Xi is particularly damaging for Trump in the run-up to an election in which he is trying to position himself as tough on China, and his opponent, Joe Biden, as being in Beijing’s pocket.
In the memoir, The Room Where It Happened, Bolton describes a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Xi on the sidelines of the June 2019 G20 meeting in Japan. Xi complained to Trump about US critics of China, and Trump suggested a way Xi could help him defeat his domestic opposition.
“He [Trump] then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming US presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns, pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win,” Bolton writes.
“He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome. I would print Trump’s exact words but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/17/john-bolton-book-trump-china-accusations-dictators
etc etc... It seems Trump encouraged Xi to continue building Ouighours camps. The timing is interesting since Trump just signed on sanctions from congress for Chinese executives involved in these camps. (sorry, french source)
https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/ouighours-trump-promulgue-une-loi-prevoyant-des-sanctions-contre-des-responsables-chinois-20200617
I'm still very reserved on how to take this one due to Bolton's behaviour, but the lengths Trump has just gone to, reopening WH review after it was closed two months ago, then asserting ALL chats he had with aides are classified with no exceptions etc... means it must sting him a little bit more than the other times.
Bolton has been sued, but interestingly enough, his publisher has not. So all bets are live on whether the book will come out or not.
|
On June 18 2020 05:54 Nouar wrote:Annnnd the shitshow starts. Excerpts has started being published here and there in newspapers from the Bolton book : Show nested quote +Bolton’s book also goes through a litany of what Trump does not know about the world – that Britain had nuclear weapons of its own, for example, or that Finland was not part of Russia. Show nested quote +Trump also refused to issue a statement commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
“That was 15 years ago,” he told Bolton (it was the 30th anniversary). “Who cares about it? I’m trying to make a deal. I don’t want anything,” Trump said, according to Bolton’s account. Show nested quote +According to excerpts published by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Washington Post, Bolton describes a pattern of corruption in which Trump routinely attempts to use the leverage of US power on other countries to his own personal ends.
“The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Bolton writes, adding that he took his concerns to the attorney general, William Barr.
The anecdote involving Xi is particularly damaging for Trump in the run-up to an election in which he is trying to position himself as tough on China, and his opponent, Joe Biden, as being in Beijing’s pocket.
In the memoir, The Room Where It Happened, Bolton describes a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Xi on the sidelines of the June 2019 G20 meeting in Japan. Xi complained to Trump about US critics of China, and Trump suggested a way Xi could help him defeat his domestic opposition.
“He [Trump] then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming US presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability to affect the ongoing campaigns, pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win,” Bolton writes.
“He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome. I would print Trump’s exact words but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/17/john-bolton-book-trump-china-accusations-dictatorsetc etc... It seems Trump encouraged Xi to continue building Ouighours camps. The timing is interesting since Trump just signed on sanctions from congress for Chinese executives involved in these camps. (sorry, french source) https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/ouighours-trump-promulgue-une-loi-prevoyant-des-sanctions-contre-des-responsables-chinois-20200617I'm still very reserved on how to take this one due to Bolton's behaviour, but the lengths Trump has just gone to, reopening WH review after it was closed two months ago, then asserting ALL chats he had with aides are classified with no exceptions etc... means it must sting him a little bit more than the other times. Bolton has been sued, but interestingly enough, his publisher has not. So all bets are live on whether the book will come out or not. Xi complained to Trump about US critics of China, and Trump suggested a way Xi could help him defeat his domestic opposition. Isn't this just Russiagate 2.0 Chinese Boogaloo ?
The President asking a foreign power for help in winning his re-election.
I also facepalm at Bolton complaining to Barr when Barr has been completely in Trumps pocket from well before he started the job by writing an op-ed about how he would protect Trump from prosecution if he were to be named Attorney General.
Which he then was.
|
|
|
Yeah Google needs to shut down Youtube comments ASAP. Flagrant violation of their own policies. While they're at it they need to demonetize every website that has a comments section, because I'm pretty sure we could find inappropriate comments on all of them. This whole big tech censorship thing is just hilariously impractical.
|
If Nixon were alive, he'd be envious of Trump's capabilities to shut down any investigation of the things he has done. Bolton should just leak the book and claim to have his cloud hacked or something.
As for zerohedge, the quality of its articles already was deteriorating, now it will get even worse. The only far right thing about the site was the comment section imo.
|
|
|
Damn. There goes my unprotected sex with randos plan this weekend. DAMN YOU TRUMP!
In other news, the cop that shot Rayshard Brooks was charged of felony murder and like 10 other things. This was surprisingly fast imo.
Edit: changed convicted to charged.
|
I think if Trump claims one thing, and then claims the exact opposite, that actually increases his truthfulness stat. At least this means that 50% of his statements are true, i don't think that is a level he usually reaches.
|
On June 18 2020 06:58 Simberto wrote:
I think if Trump claims one thing, and then claims the exact opposite, that actually increases his truthfulness stat. At least this means that 50% of his statements are true, i don't think that is a level he usually reaches.
I was waiting for him to name-drop hydroxychloroquine, bleach, and/or UV light as the cure to AIDS we had all been overlooking.
+ Show Spoiler +The noise from windmills causes cancer, but it cures AIDS!
|
On June 18 2020 03:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 03:15 Danglars wrote:I don’t know if this is such a good look, given Alphabet Google’s YouTube comment section. That stuff is super toxic. This feels more like a self own. When it basically monopolizes search engine activity and digital ads, the last thing it should want is to be seen throwing its weight around in this kind of fashion. Hawley doesn’t have power right now, but I do see his “wing” of pro-regulation for tech companies gaining strength through incidents like these. Ah, I forgot about Youtube. To be fair, youtube could get rid of its comment section and lose nothing of any value. Google is definitely being hypocritical here, but it's from very different departments of people (and last I checked, being a hypocrite isn't a legal risk).
They could go the route of shutting down YouTube comments, until they can bring their platforms in compliance with other platforms. Or they could invite some third party auditing company to compile a report comparing what’s actionable on other companies versus what their own algorithms or paid moderators can’t catch. But like ... oof bad look for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
