Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Cass · 11-01-2021 02:05PM

Mellor wrote: »

I just mean my the subject has been done to death on boards.ie and I’m personally not interested in discussing it. .

About ten minutes after i posted, and had the computer turned off, i thought to myself it was a mistake to bring it up because its one of the most polarizing topics out there and frankly one i'm not interested in debating further either.

Feisar · 11-01-2021 02:10PM

Silly Gilly wrote: »

LOL, Dave Cullen, Dolores Cahill and murdering babies in one post! What is it about shooting wildlife that attracts absolute right-wing headbangers?

The world is changing and leaving dinosaurs like you, Cass, behind. Get used to it.

I do have to laugh, the other side is all about tiptoeing around people feelings, getting upset over very little, etc. One would think you would be more accommodating to another persons POV.

BattleCorp · 11-01-2021 03:31PM

I'm totally against deplatforming people, because that means that someone gets to choose the narrative. And who gets to do the choosing? Zuck, Twitface, Biden etc.? The tech companies are too powerful nowadays and need to be snipped.

I do realise there has to be some constraint and people can't be allowed to say anything they like (such as calling for the death of certain groups), but as far as saying stuff that might offend, rock on lads. I've no problem with anybody saying anything offensive to me because I'm an adult, and I'll get on with life eitherways.

Cass · 11-01-2021 03:56PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I do realise there has to be some constraint and people can't be allowed to say anything they like (such as calling for the death of certain groups),

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".

............. but as far as saying stuff that might offend, rock on lads. I've no problem with anybody saying anything offensive to me because I'm an adult, and I'll get on with life eitherways.

Exactly, but in todays culture people are offended by more and more. I mean if everything that anyone found offensive were to banned there would be no communication, interaction or social aspect to being alive.

As Stephen Fry once said in relation to being offended:

' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that. ' Well, so ****ing what."

BattleCorp · 11-01-2021 04:05PM

Cass wrote: »

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".

We haven't seen the wording of the proposed legislation as of yet, but that's neither here nor there as 'I'm agin it' on principle.

Exactly, but in todays culture people are offended by more and more. I mean if everything that anyone found offensive were to banned there would be no communication, interaction or social aspect to being alive.

Fcuk em, that's what I say.

tudderone · 11-01-2021 04:26PM

Cass wrote: »

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".

I can see judges throwing case after case out of court as it flys in the face of free speech and its definition in the western world, or at least they should.

Feisar · 11-01-2021 04:29PM

Cass wrote: »

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".

Exactly, but in todays culture people are offended by more and more. I mean if everything that anyone found offensive were to banned there would be no communication, interaction or social aspect to being alive.

As Stephen Fry once said in relation to being offended:

Who's going to do the deeming though?

tudderone · 11-01-2021 04:48PM

Mutti Merkel taking Trumps side in the twitter ban row. Who knew ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9134255/Germanys-Merkel-Trumps-Twitter-eviction-problematic.html

"France's finance minister Bruno Le Maire also voiced doubts about Trump's ban today, telling France Inter radio that it should not be for the 'digital oligarchy' to regulate itself.

Echoing Merkel's spokesman, Le Maire said that regulatory decisions should be taken by elected governments rather than by American corporate bosses".

Cass · 11-01-2021 05:13PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

We haven't seen the wording of the proposed legislation as of yet,

Nor will you until it is an Act, at which point its too late. The "you'll have to wait till its law before you know what is in it" line doesn't sit well with me.

However the reported content includes:

Protection for any group deemed minority
Ethic groups
Harsher prison sentences
Guilt by association (if you did not start the hate speech but joined in knowing it was hate speech you're guilty)
Exemption for big tech platforms

According to all reports it'll be a case of trying to prove someone's frame of mind or intent (mentes reae).

tudderone · 11-01-2021 05:24PM

Cass wrote: »

Nor will you until it is an Act, at which point its too late. The "you'll have to wait till its law before you know what is in it" line doesn't sit well with me.

However the reported content includes:
Protection for any group deemed minority

Ethic groups

Harsher prison sentences

Guilt by association (if you did not start the hate speech but joined in knowing it was hate speech you're guilty)

Exemption for big tech platforms

According to all reports it'll be a case of trying to prove someone's frame of mind or intent (mentes reae).

Shooters are a minority

tudderone · 11-01-2021 05:49PM

We now have the highest covid infection rate in the world

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/coronavirus-ireland-live-updates-new-19605241

Munsterlad102 · 11-01-2021 07:16PM

tudderone wrote: »

I can see judges throwing case after case out of court as it flys in the face of free speech and its definition in the western world, or at least they should.

That's exactly whats going to happen. I read somewhere that there was only 5 convictions under the current act, so there must have been an incredibly high threshold to be met. Either that or these were in addition to other crimes, ie aggravating factors.

Not only is this clearly unconstitutional but goes against the European Declaration on Human Rights, so there could be cased in the Supreme Court and even in European Courts.

Cass · 11-01-2021 07:25PM

tudderone wrote: »

We now have the highest covid infection rate in the world

Wow.

How are the numbers being recorded as they've stopped "broad" testing?

Grizzly 45 · 11-01-2021 07:26PM

Mellor wrote: »

Prior to the election, Biden was a huge favourite. It’s hardly shocking that a favourite wins battleground states.
He would have been a bigger favourite if it wasn’t for delusional money on trump. People were still betting 100s of millions against Biden for weeks after the election. That’s insane.

Err No BELLWEATHER counties are counties that are used as predictors of how an election will go. Much different to battleground states. Now,you can debate are they as scientific as using a groundhog to predict when Spring will come on a certain day...But they have been accurate over the last century. Strange that Trump won all 17 of 18 of them.
Biden was a huge favourite with MSM...Same as Hillary was in 2016 and they were wrong on Hillary...Ask Dennis O Brien on his lost 6million in Hillarys war chest,as they were on their so-called "Blue wave " in Congress.Not one Republican was defeated. What people do with their money is hardly revelant to the whole discussion.if people want to bet thats their win or loss.

This is just more finger pointing in an attempt to deflect. Stupidity on one side doesn’t excuse stupidity on another. This is largely the problem with polarised politics. It’s worse than football fans.

It's pointing out the hypocrisy of the non-censure of statements of incitement to violence by Democratic senators ald the speaker of the house on violence on Social media.

Regardless of his convoluted it is, it doesn’t give him these powers. Can you point to any source that says it does?

Ok ..Unless you are a US constitutional lawyer, specialising in the electoral act, this point will be about as useful as two bald men arguing over a better brand of a hairbrush if we get into it. There is so much opinion both pro and anti-that point as to whether the VP has this power to rescind votes to the states that it will be a Thunder dome debate. One of the problems in this is the founders never discussed this in any detail as to this situation occuring,and as it has never occurred before this particular type of situation and the jury will be long out on whether the VP did thave the power or not to do this under the act.

The VP’s role comes from the constitution. Which previously you described as a very clear document in plain English. In simple terms it doesn’t give him these powers

.
As Above...Open to interpertation yes/no by much wiser legal heads than ours.

And as far as I know, the VP has never sent it back - open to correct on that, but should be well documented if it happened.

It has never happened until now,and there is no precedent for a situation forwhat has happened in the 20 election.

I don’t think either claims that. They are social media websites, and ultimately private companies.
No different to boards.ie and the fact they choose to disallow certain content.

Freedom of expression means I can write a book on the virtues of grave robbing and voodoo if I wished. But it doesn’t mean that I can walk into Harper Collins and demand they publish it.

But if Harper Collins is saying "We welcome all manuscripts as we believe in freedom of publishing all views irrespective, but will only publish total scripts on Incest and Satanismand or heavily censor any scripts on voodoo and grave robbing" Which is what FB is doing along with now pushing to be the only voice on social media thru its affiliate companies.

Of course, it’s a double standard. Almost every single opinion is bias. Personal or corporate.
CNN have double standards to the left.
Fox’s have double standards to the right.

Yes, happens when Ron Regan got rid of the truth in news and impartiality in the broadcasting act in the 1980s.

I personally try to be centrist. But that increasingly difficult to know the line

.
AGREE 100%

Nobody could be that idiotic.

NEVER underestimate the stupidity of people

If that were true, then the link to the video would be all over the net by now. Anyone could view it. He’d not escape a conviction.
And if it is true, should be trivial to link to his account.

Obviously gone now and the account suspended/closed.Unfortunately ,for him the there is face recognition and screen saving out there.

How would it?

The story was that the FSB/KGB had the hotel under surveillance.

As they always do. Even to the fact each and every room are wired for sound and movies I can tell you that from personal experience...Another chapter in the memoirs.
Trouble is; I wasn't that as an important target as the then VP's idiot son whose dad might one day be president, who ignored every known security briefing on being compromised and was negligent with his electronics.

It’s the exact same as the Hunter compromised scenario. IF they have that video, they would have used it to squeeze Trump.

Blackmail becomes useless when the blackmailed reaches a position od power to refute the blackmailer or turns the tables on them by saying EG "yeah I did it so what? Gimme a copy of the video, I'm actually quite kinky and I want it to show my missus,as she's into this as well..".
IOW it was useless once Trump became president, except to throw some dirt, that once the collusion with Russia tribunal fell flat on its face due to zero evidence worth mentioning.
Unfortunately for the Bidens, the problem is they have been accusing Trump of doing what they themselves have been doing for years, and there is a lot more there than a supposedly mucky video on them.
There are several and worse is now because of the PH acc affair, there is now "evidence" of his behaviour, along with him paying a stripper for child support with a kid he claimed wasn't his until a DNA test proved otherwise.

tudderone · 11-01-2021 07:47PM

Cass wrote: »

Wow.

How are the numbers being recorded as they've stopped "broad" testing?

I don't know to be honest, it must be the numbers of people actually testing positive for the lurgy. 5 people tested positive in my sisters office, yet still the managers won't allow working from home :rolleyes:. With willful obstinacy like that is it any surprise the thing is running amok ?

Grizzly 45 · 11-01-2021 07:51PM

tudderone wrote: »

Mutti Merkel taking Trumps side in the twitter ban row. Who knew ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9134255/Germanys-Merkel-Trumps-Twitter-eviction-problematic.html

"France's finance minister Bruno Le Maire also voiced doubts about Trump's ban today, telling France Inter radio that it should not be for the 'digital oligarchy' to regulate itself.

Echoing Merkel's spokesman, Le Maire said that regulatory decisions should be taken by elected governments rather than by American corporate bosses".

See even thr Gurnard[FGaurdian] came out against the FB oligarch as well.

Grizzly 45 · 11-01-2021 07:53PM

I'd really like to know as to wHY;
We dont hear on how many people recover and leave hospitals in Ireland?
Why are we not told how many people are inoculated on a daily basis?
A bit of positive news from Doctor Death & Co every evening would be a morale booster...Somewhat.

Cass · 11-01-2021 09:49PM

tudderone wrote: »

With willful obstinacy like that is it any surprise the thing is running amok ?

It was a genuine question because my young lad came home the other day saying how a chap in his work told the rest of them that he tested positive (yet was still turning up for work). He [young lad] and 30 others walked off site and called their GPs as the Government advert says to do for their covid consulation and to ask about testing.

They were all told to self isolate, but no tests would be given as they, and this is a direct quote " cannot keep up with the demand for testing so they are no longer offering it to people who show no symptoms".

So what are the guidelines now. If you are Asymptomatic do you give it a couple of days and return to work, or self isolate never knowing if you have it or not?

On one hand i understand the need to prioritize testing, but on the other the young lad and all the others will have two options:

Self isolate, possibly loosing their jobs as a result, and never know if they have/had it then return to work.
Don't isolate, and return to work to either be "immune" or risk catching it (at which point they may still be Asymptomatic or start to show symptoms).

IOW its the uncertainty of not knowing which makes the process of what to do a mockery.

BTW they were told a free test would not be provided but they can go and pay for a private test in about three to four weeks. So money aside it presents the same problems, and they must break lockdown to travel (through three counties) while being "Schrodinger's" patient.

tudderone · 11-01-2021 10:56PM

Aren't building sites and the like locked down ? There is one up the road from me and its locked. The builder must be taking a bath with that site, its been open 6 months and there is feck all done with the two lockdowns and the christmas break.

Seriously though i don't know where this is all going to end, its been a year nearly, the first european victim died on this day a year ago and the lockdowns and panic started not long after here. How difficult can it be to inject the populace ? I know the eu have not alloted us enough vaccine, so why do we have to dance to their tune anyway ? Can we as a country not buy more from the Uk or where ever and just get it done.

Its a waste of a year, hardly a shot fired by me or anyone else, work life knackered, home life stressful, plans gone by the wayside etc.

tudderone · 11-01-2021 11:07PM

Pelosi, (illegally) tries to make it impossible for trump to have access to the Nuclear launch codes, not only that she broadcasts it around the globe on Twatter so Iran etc know it :rolleyes:

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

Mellor · 12-01-2021 02:38AM

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Err No BELLWEATHER counties are counties that are used as predictors of how an election will go. Much different to battleground states. Now,you can debate are they as scientific as using a groundhog to predict when Spring will come on a certain day...But they have been accurate over the last century. Strange that Trump won all 17 of 18 of them.

He current bellweather counties have not been going 100 years. It's counted from 1980, as they almost all got the 1976 election wrong too. The fact is It happens. Especially in a highly polarised election. Hillary won 14 bellweathers.

If anything, if there was fraud in states with Bellweathers, it would carry to the results and they're streak would continue.

Biden was a huge favourite with MSM...Same as Hillary was in 2016 and they were wrong on Hillary...Ask Dennis O Brien on his lost 6million in Hillarys war chest,as they were on their so-called "Blue wave " in Congress.Not one Republican was defeated. What people do with their money is hardly revelant to the whole discussion.if people want to bet thats their win or loss.

Media Polls have never been very accurate. They most missed last time, then mostly right this time.
I don't think there is much data to be taken from CCN predicted Blue, and Fox predicting red....every single time.

The betting market has no agenda however. This election was officially the most bet on event of all time. That's a pretty massive live poll, that it's bias or attempting to sway, it's simply the little guy's $$$ backed opinion.
It put Biden at a slight, 62% favourite. I think that accurately matches the results.

Ok ..Unless you are a US constitutional lawyer, specialising in the electoral act, this point will be about as useful as two bald men arguing over a better brand of a hairbrush if we get into it. There is so much opinion both pro and anti-that point as to whether the VP has this power to rescind votes to the states that it will be a Thunder dome debate. One of the problems in this is the founders never discussed this in any detail as to this situation occuring,and as it has never occurred before this particular type of situation and the jury will be long out on whether the VP did thave the power or not to do this under the act.

As Above...Open to interpertation yes/no by much wiser legal heads than ours.

I'm not asking you to argue the text of the laws, or interpret them.
I'm asking you to point to any one of these wiser legal heads that says he has, or may have the power to do it. I have seen nobody claim that. I've point out multiple experts who said the opposite.
(I'm not claiming to read every opinion out there, obviously)

It has never happened until now,and there is no precedent for a situation forwhat has happened in the 20 election.

You literally said it have happen, more than once and there was precedent for the VP to do it.
Bit of a reversal there.

But if Harper Collins is saying "We welcome all manuscripts as we believe in freedom of publishing all views irrespective, but will only publish total scripts on Incest and Satanismand or heavily censor any scripts on voodoo and grave robbing" Which is what FB is doing along with now pushing to be the only voice on social media thru its affiliate companies.

If Harper Colins said that it would of course be silly.
Facebook is media. What exactly that means has changed over it's lifetime.
He was taking money for fakenews ads at one point, that he knew was fake. It's was a data aggregator that amassed a stagger amount of public profiling, for sale of course.
It's not a wholesome company there to up hold rights.

As I said, I want reasonably free expression. I'm ok if certain things are not ok, the obvious stuff.
Expression isn't a valid excuse for harassment.

And I certainly don't agree with totalitarian censorship.
But I also don't think it's ok for an elected official to willing lie to the people. All officials.
That's literally Kim Jong Ung playbook.
I'm ok if there was some other recourse than deplatforming.

Obviously gone now and the account suspended/closed.Unfortunately ,for him the there is face recognition and screen saving out there.

How would it?

If anyone seen the video, it would have be saved within seconds and then it's viral
AFAIK the website is fully public.

As they always do. Even to the fact each and every room are wired for sound and movies I can tell you that from personal experience...Another chapter in the memoirs.
Trouble is; I wasn't that as an important target as the then VP's idiot son whose dad might one day be president, who ignored every known security briefing on being compromised and was negligent with his electronics.

Each room wired for video. But none of these videos are online? Yet, not being online is the reason it doesn't exist.

My point was that you choose to believe that the Hunter stories are true, that the video existed on a publicly accessible website. But was deleted from the entire internet before anyone made a copy.
But you choose to believe the Trump video didn't exist in the hands of a secret intelligence agency, because it is not been shared all over the internet.

That's just two completely polarising levels of acceptance. Bit silly to do that, and complain about double standards in the same post.

FWIW I don't know if either videos existed. However, I do know that one posted on a video sharing website is a lot hard to conceal that one in the hands of the FSB.

Blackmail becomes useless when the blackmailed reaches a position of power to refute the blackmailer or turns the tables on them by saying EG "yeah I did it so what? Gimme a copy of the video, I'm actually quite kinky and I want it to show my missus,as she's into this as well..".
IOW it was useless once Trump became president, except to throw some dirt, that once the collusion with Russia tribunal fell flat on its face due to zero evidence worth mentioning.

So it become useless to the Russians after he was in power? Ok.
Doesn't that counter the earlier claim that it didn't exist because it wasn't posted to throw dirt.

Whether it exists or not doesn't affect my point btw.

BattleCorp · 12-01-2021 08:32AM

tudderone wrote: »

I don't know to be honest, it must be the numbers of people actually testing positive for the lurgy. 5 people tested positive in my sisters office, yet still the managers won't allow working from home :rolleyes:. With willful obstinacy like that is it any surprise the thing is running amok ?

Stupidity really.

I wonder will there be many personal injury cases taken by people who caught COVID-19 after they were forced to work in an office when there was credible alternatives?

BattleCorp · 12-01-2021 08:38AM

Cass wrote: »

So what are the guidelines now. If you are Asymptomatic do you give it a couple of days and return to work, or self isolate never knowing if you have it or not?

I'd love to know what COVID-19 training was provided to the guy who turned up to work when he knew he had the virus? The thickest person around knows that if you have the virus, you should be isolating.

The guidelines now are the same as before for close contacts. All of those guys will have to restrict their movements for 14 days. That means no work, no shops etc.

On one hand i understand the need to prioritize testing, but on the other the young lad and all the others will have two options:
Self isolate, possibly loosing their jobs as a result, and never know if they have/had it then return to work.

Don't isolate, and return to work to either be "immune" or risk catching it (at which point they may still be Asymptomatic or start to show symptoms).

Even if those guys were tested, and came back negative, they would still have to restrict their movements for 14 days. Them's the rules.

BTW they were told a free test would not be provided but they can go and pay for a private test in about three to four weeks. So money aside it presents the same problems, and they must break lockdown to travel (through three counties) while being "Schrodinger's" patient.

Doesn't matter what tests they have (private/HSE), if you are a close contact and test negative, you still have to restrict movements for 14 days.

yubabill · 12-01-2021 12:50PM

I just want to say this for the record:

There's a lot of crazy stuff being said on the net about Trump/Biden and the election/inauguration.

I personally think that there was a lot of stuff that went on during the election that needs to be investigated if the US is going to be able to claim to have had a transparent election

BUT I also think that there is going to be a peaceful transition on 20 Jan to a Biden administration.

We all criticise the MSM and big tech from time to time, but I feel that the reason they are pushing Biden so hard all the time and dismissing claims of election fraud is that they know how dirty and Machiavellian politics can be.

I believe that claims of election fraud should be pursued to the nth degree for as long as necessary, until either proven or disproven, but in the process, democratic norms should be observed.

Now, all the internet purges/no-fly/banking suspensions/withdrawal of political donations etc. are a bit much, but I think that these will backfire.

I needed to say that just to organise my thoughts and eke out a middle course for myself in all the confusion.

BattleCorp · 12-01-2021 01:55PM

Before I go any further, I'm stating that I'm not a Trump fan. I think he's not a good President. Anyway......

I got fleeced in another thread for saying that I don't think it's a good thing that the tech companies are deplatforming and preventing Trump from raising funds.

It's one thing to have Corporate America decide who they want to give funding to, and I'm fine with that. Private industry can back who they like with their own money. But it's another thing for companies like Stripe/GoFundMe to decide to stop processing payments from people who want to donate to Trump's cause.

I was hit with arguments like they are private companies (FB/Twitter/Stripe etc.) and can do business with whoever they like but people aren't taking into account that these companies have pretty much morphed into Utilities providers and can't really be done without if you want to have a successful political career. Good luck getting elected if you don't have a social media presence. It' ain't going to happen.

The gay cake bakery was also brought up. And that's fine, if you don't want to bake gay cakes, then don't. But this isn't a good example because they aren't similar situations. The bakery didn't cook gay cakes for anyone. They didn't cook some gay cakes and then refused to cook gay cakes for others. It would be a similar situation if Stripe/GoFundMe didn't allow anybody to donate to any political causes but that's not what happened.

People are saying that Trump deserves it, and maybe that is so but that shouldn't be for private companies to decide. If Trump broke the law, let him be prosecuted and if/when he is convicted, then maybe take action.

Today it's Trump they are deplatforming/preventing funding etc. Who will it be tomorrow?

Cass · 12-01-2021 02:11PM

yubabill wrote: »

We all criticise the MSM and big tech from time to time, but I feel that the reason they are pushing Biden so hard all the time and dismissing claims of election fraud is that they know how dirty and Machiavellian politics can be.

More likely that the Biden transition team is stacked with big tech people and the four largest companies are silently pushing for permanent, government, positions for these and more of their [big tech] people.

Now, all the internet purges/no-fly/banking suspensions/withdrawal of political donations etc. are a bit much, but I think that these will backfire.

For a while as is the case today with Google, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook loosing between $5 to $34 BILLION in share value and its still dropping.

However that won't last and until some real progress is made in stripping these companies of the, frankly unGodly, powers they seem to be able to wield nothing will change.

They control the majority of the information, what you see, how you see it and can easily influence election outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v6KBGr5IzY

Mellor · 12-01-2021 02:33PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I was hit with arguments like they are private companies (FB/Twitter/Stripe etc.) and can do business with whoever they like but people aren't taking into account that these companies have pretty much morphed into Utilities providers and can't really be done without if you want to have a successful political career.

Stripe are a single payments company. They are one of many I don’t think they are a big player overall, easy to replace.

The gay cake bakery was also brought up. And that's fine, if you don't want to bake gay cakes, then don't. But this isn't a good example because they aren't similar situations. The bakery didn't cook gay cakes for anyone. They didn't cook some gay cakes and then refused to cook gay cakes for others. It would be a similar situation if Stripe/GoFundMe didn't allow anybody to donate to any political causes but that's not what happened.

Your framing it incorrectly.
It’s not gay cakes = donations. It’s just cakes.

Bakery made cakes for lots of people. But refused cakes with a gay message, as they didn’t agree with it.

Stripe are processing payments for most. But they’re choosing not to do business with those they disagree with.

I think that’s actually a good example where people where ok with a company providing a service selectively. Obviously different scales.

Another good example is the thousands of Chinese accounts closed on Twitter as they were state propaganda agents. I don’t remember anyone complaining about their right to spread lies.

People are saying that Trump deserves it, and maybe that is so but that shouldn't be for private companies to decide. If Trump broke the law, let him be prosecuted and if/when he is convicted, then maybe take action.

The really odd part, is that after the 2016 election the dems were pushing gov regulation. But the GOP were pushing for FB and whoever to decide for themselves.

Parler effectively gone for now too. If you going to run a unmoderated website. Don’t sign up to a contract that requires you to moderate
It will find a new host. But I can’t see lasting with the current free for all, as it will just attract the illegal content.

tudderone · 12-01-2021 03:37PM

I was watching this last night. People say media hosting is a free market, where if you don't want to be on one platform, or are removed from that platform, then go somewhere else. The trouble is where do you go ? A huge amount of shooting channels left Youtube for Parler, and what happens ? Its effectively closed. Doing a search revels nothing on Google. So the free market isn't a free market.

When you see Merkel and other European leaders complain about Trumps treatment on Facebook (owned by zukerberg, a biden supporter) or twitter etc, ther must be something to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev__j30ZRTw

tudderone · 12-01-2021 08:48PM

"We will terrorise you until you do what we want", it about sums it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2utv5bad3A

Grizzly 45 · 12-01-2021 10:51PM

Wonder has this got a lot to do with things in the current state of affairs? Been rather under reported in Ireland....Wonder why?

Zuckerbergs empire is also under investigation for antitrust breaches in the law.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/09/facebook-antitrust-state-attorneys-general/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMYb6CHr2802Cyi9-8ldfVjE4-_i3OwrIkhembe2GqELqit8E0jKf1DEjw2PjpzxIGRKyVtGfuhpdYFx5cMSJcABIBOyTHR6UyNAKe4eYqK8drbkQxMKlrRQD1uRVy-4F0w4WCZJZVzngYwvE5JVohRp5-HOgD9IdB0epw3eId0W

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/06/facebook-google-antitrust-investigations-explained

Seems also that Parler is kicking back at Amazon for breach of contract and anti trust as well.

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252494666/Parler-sues-AWS-for-anti-trust-and-breach-of-contract-after-Amazon-public-cloud-ban-takes-it-offline

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County