It all boils down to what we’ve seen repeated many times over: conservatives define freedom of speech not as being allowed to speak their minds, but as never facing any consequences or pushback for doing so, because that is cancel culture. In it’s most crude form, it’s like having a friend who punches you in the face and then complains you are being unfair to them when you end the friendship.
And “a phrase that conservatives reflexively block out, like Civil Rights Act” is a gem.
It is sometimes said conservatives are incapable of learning, but this is not true. They have learned that their ideas WOULD be wildly popular if only they could completely suppress everyone else's ideas. And this is the driving force behind their push to enforce "free speech" on private platforms and their rage against the world at large. People should be FORCED to see/hear/read the conservative point of view, and GODDAMNIT why are those libs even allowed to be on twitter/book of faces/youtube?
Meanwhile, the real world just keeps stomping on them despite the playing field now being tilted 45 degrees in their favor. (I note that YouTube constantly recommends an endless stream of Rightwing and far-Rightwing videos for me despite my never ever having watched anything more political than railfan videos, and despite my spending 10 minutes every day clicking the "DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS CHANNEL" button. Apparently the only way to achieve the "balance" that conservatives demand is to constantly avalanche only recommendations for conservative media.)
Related: Americans value their privacy. Which is why we have now purchased more than 200 million devices explicitly designed and advertised to constantly monitor everything that goes on in our homes and report the results back to corporate HQ.
I, for one, relish the prospect of a "big, lush alternate universe" (2 marks, BTW) in which we conserve what's left of the biota of THIS planet before traipsing off to SOME OTHER planet in the hideously mistaken belief that such action would be a better use for someone else's money.
"I’m telling the Secretary of Defense to his face to suck my dick —"
"well, that’s not, as logic and law would suggest, tough titty, that’s censorship, see- "
Two $ 7 phrases in a couple of inches column space! What a value!
The first in just laugh out loud funny and the second is part of this whole huge wonderful acrobatic construct of a sentence that really kind of takes your breath away.
Dunno that there's any actual cyber problem so much as right wing performative crap. Also dunno that's any real problem as opposed to the GOP coming up with some BS claims to excite the base, shake down lobbyists, intimidate social platforms. Whole lotta sizzle, so little steak. Too, I can't see any legislation becoming law that actually does anything. Probably get something strengthening the big established companies, maybe. You know, does as little to address any problem there may be as the John Cornyn Gun Control law passed earlier this year. That is, precious little that precludes any action for a long time to come.
Here's a law skool-type hypothetical: Anything done to legislate social media into being open to all comers no matter want, explicitly or implicitly has to strengthened the allegedly despised §230; discuss.
BTW: The awful scandals (sarcasm) revealed by the Twitter files is nothing compared to what Facebook allows and enables. Magnitudes of difference, all for the worse. (For those correctly ignoring this mishugas, Twitter's base is a fraction of Facebook's and the former does not force literal crap into feeds unlike the latter and YouTube.)
Maybe I'm just old and don't see any more problem than chronic whiners about nothing whining about nothing.
The day’s barely begun and I’ve already learned a new phrase - “walla walla” - that I thought only meant a city in Washington! Also, Frank Wilhoit, the composer not the social scientist, is smarter and more articulate than I’ll ever be. Always good to get a heaping helping of humility first thing, it keeps me balanced. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the reaction of Long Island Republicans to the realization that they fell for the greatest fabulist since Baron von Munchausen. But if he’s out, does Hochul get to appoint a Democrat? That would be justice.
Just excellent. This is a great series. Can't wait for Suck #1. As for the "free speech for me not you" advocates, and one more example of the "Nothing Is Ever New In Conservatism" department, you can find all today's hyper-hypocritical right-wing blather about "censorship" in the writings of Robert Bork. For example, Bork thought unregulated right-wing talk radio was the bee's knees because it owned the libs: "The effectiveness of talk radio may be gauged by the hysteria it generates in the liberal press and among liberal politicians." But when it came to speech he didn't like, specifically that found on the Internet, he argued for a revival of government censorship to suppress "the obscene prose and pictures available on the Internet, motion pictures that are mere rhapsodies to violence, and the more degenerate lyrics of rap music," among a slew of other things contrary to "conservative and traditional ideas and attitudes." He actually called what he wanted "censorship", and was a big fan of "the right of the majority to live in an environment free of the worst insults to decency," which were anything he didn't like.
Facebook wants my life story? If that’s the price of admission to a world where I can know what my far-flung relatives are up to without actually having to talk to them, it’s worth it.
I have a friend who's on Facebook for exactly that reason.
Look, let's just set aside this nonsense about investigating Big Tech (or even Small Tech, in the form of Hunter's laptop). Can't we all, as Americans, unite in bipartisan agreement against our common enemy, Southwest Airlines?
Geez Roy, you farm this out to a techbro buddy we didn't know about? I mean, "the benefits of this big, lush alternate universe were found to outweigh the downsides?" "Having gotten everything they asked for from technology, and having given next to nothing in return?" Shit, man.
Online information has also transformed obituaries into rich sources of information for identity-thieving ghouls to data mine. All those familial relations and significant dates sitting there to be pieced together…
This column is extra relevant today, considering that Andrew Tate was dumb enough to pick a fight with Greta Thunberg on Twitter and is currently getting his ass handed to him. Sorry Andrew, but actions have consequences, even for you. https://occupydemocrats.com/2022/12/28/you-go-greta-thunberg-owns-tiny-andrew-tate-over-braggy-car-tweet/
Good one, Roy. 'nuff said.
It all boils down to what we’ve seen repeated many times over: conservatives define freedom of speech not as being allowed to speak their minds, but as never facing any consequences or pushback for doing so, because that is cancel culture. In it’s most crude form, it’s like having a friend who punches you in the face and then complains you are being unfair to them when you end the friendship.
And “a phrase that conservatives reflexively block out, like Civil Rights Act” is a gem.
It is sometimes said conservatives are incapable of learning, but this is not true. They have learned that their ideas WOULD be wildly popular if only they could completely suppress everyone else's ideas. And this is the driving force behind their push to enforce "free speech" on private platforms and their rage against the world at large. People should be FORCED to see/hear/read the conservative point of view, and GODDAMNIT why are those libs even allowed to be on twitter/book of faces/youtube?
Meanwhile, the real world just keeps stomping on them despite the playing field now being tilted 45 degrees in their favor. (I note that YouTube constantly recommends an endless stream of Rightwing and far-Rightwing videos for me despite my never ever having watched anything more political than railfan videos, and despite my spending 10 minutes every day clicking the "DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS CHANNEL" button. Apparently the only way to achieve the "balance" that conservatives demand is to constantly avalanche only recommendations for conservative media.)
Related: Americans value their privacy. Which is why we have now purchased more than 200 million devices explicitly designed and advertised to constantly monitor everything that goes on in our homes and report the results back to corporate HQ.
We're going to die of stupid.
The Elon Musk ur-Tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1607584023932719104
I, for one, relish the prospect of a "big, lush alternate universe" (2 marks, BTW) in which we conserve what's left of the biota of THIS planet before traipsing off to SOME OTHER planet in the hideously mistaken belief that such action would be a better use for someone else's money.
"I’m telling the Secretary of Defense to his face to suck my dick —"
"well, that’s not, as logic and law would suggest, tough titty, that’s censorship, see- "
Two $ 7 phrases in a couple of inches column space! What a value!
The first in just laugh out loud funny and the second is part of this whole huge wonderful acrobatic construct of a sentence that really kind of takes your breath away.
Godspeed Wordsmith !
Dunno that there's any actual cyber problem so much as right wing performative crap. Also dunno that's any real problem as opposed to the GOP coming up with some BS claims to excite the base, shake down lobbyists, intimidate social platforms. Whole lotta sizzle, so little steak. Too, I can't see any legislation becoming law that actually does anything. Probably get something strengthening the big established companies, maybe. You know, does as little to address any problem there may be as the John Cornyn Gun Control law passed earlier this year. That is, precious little that precludes any action for a long time to come.
Here's a law skool-type hypothetical: Anything done to legislate social media into being open to all comers no matter want, explicitly or implicitly has to strengthened the allegedly despised §230; discuss.
BTW: The awful scandals (sarcasm) revealed by the Twitter files is nothing compared to what Facebook allows and enables. Magnitudes of difference, all for the worse. (For those correctly ignoring this mishugas, Twitter's base is a fraction of Facebook's and the former does not force literal crap into feeds unlike the latter and YouTube.)
Maybe I'm just old and don't see any more problem than chronic whiners about nothing whining about nothing.
The day’s barely begun and I’ve already learned a new phrase - “walla walla” - that I thought only meant a city in Washington! Also, Frank Wilhoit, the composer not the social scientist, is smarter and more articulate than I’ll ever be. Always good to get a heaping helping of humility first thing, it keeps me balanced. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the reaction of Long Island Republicans to the realization that they fell for the greatest fabulist since Baron von Munchausen. But if he’s out, does Hochul get to appoint a Democrat? That would be justice.
Just excellent. This is a great series. Can't wait for Suck #1. As for the "free speech for me not you" advocates, and one more example of the "Nothing Is Ever New In Conservatism" department, you can find all today's hyper-hypocritical right-wing blather about "censorship" in the writings of Robert Bork. For example, Bork thought unregulated right-wing talk radio was the bee's knees because it owned the libs: "The effectiveness of talk radio may be gauged by the hysteria it generates in the liberal press and among liberal politicians." But when it came to speech he didn't like, specifically that found on the Internet, he argued for a revival of government censorship to suppress "the obscene prose and pictures available on the Internet, motion pictures that are mere rhapsodies to violence, and the more degenerate lyrics of rap music," among a slew of other things contrary to "conservative and traditional ideas and attitudes." He actually called what he wanted "censorship", and was a big fan of "the right of the majority to live in an environment free of the worst insults to decency," which were anything he didn't like.
Facebook wants my life story? If that’s the price of admission to a world where I can know what my far-flung relatives are up to without actually having to talk to them, it’s worth it.
I have a friend who's on Facebook for exactly that reason.
Look, let's just set aside this nonsense about investigating Big Tech (or even Small Tech, in the form of Hunter's laptop). Can't we all, as Americans, unite in bipartisan agreement against our common enemy, Southwest Airlines?
Gooder than most !
Geez Roy, you farm this out to a techbro buddy we didn't know about? I mean, "the benefits of this big, lush alternate universe were found to outweigh the downsides?" "Having gotten everything they asked for from technology, and having given next to nothing in return?" Shit, man.
Online information has also transformed obituaries into rich sources of information for identity-thieving ghouls to data mine. All those familial relations and significant dates sitting there to be pieced together…