Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest banner
2201 - 2220 of 2253 Posts

·
I'll Direc your TV
Joined
·
8,846 Posts
although this goes off the topic of covid.. I think that the big tech companies are playing games similar to those that say the 2nd amendment should only cover muskets. Or those that say freedom of press only covers printed press.

I doubt the founding fathers had social media in mind when they were writing up the rules.
The people that say that are just stupid, simply put. It is what it exactly says. The bill of rights is the only document written in a way that cannot be (used to anyway) "interpreted" in a different way because the founding father knew those specific to be necessary for the liberty of a free state. They are written exactly how they are written and cannot be changed.

Though go and look it up. The bill of rights only applies when the entity is an agent or representative, or the government itself. It is not a violation of free speech because there is no free speech when you're talking about a privately owned program/platform. The free speech is whatever that platform deems "ok". There's no room or "interpretation" of that. A grocery store can have a silence policy where nobody can speak while in the store, they're not violation free speech because they're not the state or federal government.

Big tech companies doing that and it being a dick move and a clear bias towards a personal set of beliefs is something completely different and a straight asshole thing to do. That does not make it a violation the bill of rights.
 

·
I'm not old, honest...
Joined
·
30,582 Posts
So you are in favor of the government telling bus9inesses how to run their businesses?
Slippery slope for sure. Freedom of speech is a 1A right. I have the right to say whatever I want publicly. (less slander/bullying etc) However, private industry (FB, Twitter, etc) who disagrees with me have the right to censor me. Bottom line, it all depends on if you agree or disagree with a specific narrative. Do I like being censored on FB or Youtube? No. Do they have the right to do it? Yes

To @JohnnyJ s point, I think where the founding fathers slipped up is that they "assumed" that the press would be honest. Freedom of the press was to allow them to get the word out without being suppressed - not to lie for their own agenda.

Interesting sidebar. My neighbor's have a good friend who is a top lawyer for (I think) Penske. A year or so ago we were sitting on the patio and he was sharing a SCOTUS decision about this exact topic. His thoughts were that it was going to have a major social upheaval. It is..............
 

·
Low Range Drifter
Joined
·
8,545 Posts
So you are in favor of the government telling bus9inesses how to run their businesses?
They already do. And the big tech is putting millions into politicians pockets to get what they want. Parasite can't live without a host.

Is Bezos putting money in pockets of people that won't stand in the way of his company? He's buying up everything, owns it front to back. Not much talk about monopoly, especially after they took care of Parrler?

Did Gates do the same in the 90s to make sure they left Microsoft alone? What about Larry Page? You think yo don't grease some pockets when you are making a mega corporation.

Big tech companies doing that and it being a dick move and a clear bias towards a personal set of beliefs is something completely different and a straight asshole thing to do. That does not make it a violation the bill of rights.
That's exactly my point. Oh look, Bill of rights doesn't apply to a virtual town square. One that has their interests protected (like section 230) by stuffing money in the pockets of the ruling class, and happens to be acting in concert with the ruling class.

The Bill of Rights is a start. It is most definitely protects us from the government. Ever notice a common SciFi theme where corporations take place of the government? Is it far fetched? I dunno. Skynet isn't as crazy as when I saw Terminator in the 80s.
 

·
F-U-CANCER!!!
Joined
·
5,715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2,204 ·
How bout that $700,000. fine for employers who do not enforce the vaccine requirement? Seems legit, right?
 

·
Mr. Special Snowflake.
Joined
·
13,177 Posts
They already do.
I know they do. My question is are you in favor of it? I am not in favor of the government telling any social media platform what they should or shouldn't allow, just like I am not in favor of the government telling any other type of media what the should or shouldn't allow.
 

·
Mr. Special Snowflake.
Joined
·
13,177 Posts
How bout that $700,000. fine for employers who do not enforce the vaccine requirement? Seems legit, right?
I think everyone should get the vaccine, but I am not in favor of them forcing businesses to force it on their employees.
 

·
I'll Direc your TV
Joined
·
8,846 Posts
I think everyone should get the vaccine, but I am not in favor of them forcing businesses to force it on their employees.
Agree
 

·
Low Range Drifter
Joined
·
8,545 Posts
I know they do. My question is are you in favor of it? I am not in favor of the government telling any social media platform what they should or shouldn't allow, just like I am not in favor of the government telling any other type of media what the should or shouldn't allow.
I generally believe that when the government gets involved, they screw it up. Trump's big contribution to getting the vaccines produced was that he removed the bureaucracy to allow private industry to move quickly. What if the rules were rational from the start?

Like gun laws and tax laws, I think the whole thing should be reviewed and a sensible set of rules put in place. I think the problem is there are rules that have prevented a truly fair marketplace in the internet realm, as the lawmakers are slower than technology. So by having the government involved, the companies like Twiitter, Facebook, and Google have made monopolies and run large parts of the internet. Pandora's box is open, and now we are in a place where it seems like only more governement intervention can help.

Also, why are people willing to accept that some government intervention when it suites their interest is fine, but other is not. If Big Tech was run by conservatives that shut down liberal voices what would your response be?
 

·
I'll Direc your TV
Joined
·
8,846 Posts
I generally believe that when the government gets involved, they screw it up. Trump's big contribution to getting the vaccines produced was that he removed the bureaucracy to allow private industry to move quickly. What if the rules were rational from the start?

Like gun laws and tax laws, I think the whole thing should be reviewed and a sensible set of rules put in place. I think the problem is there are rules that have prevented a truly fair marketplace in the internet realm, as the lawmakers are slower than technology. So by having the government involved, the companies like Twiitter, Facebook, and Google have made monopolies and run large parts of the internet. Pandora's box is open, and now we are in a place where it seems like only more governement intervention can help.

Also, why are people willing to accept that some government intervention when it suites their interest is fine, but other is not. If Big Tech was run by conservatives that shut down liberal voices what would your response be?
Mine would be the exact same response. You seem the be the one that is ok with some government intervention, but not others. You either get it, or you don't. The reality is, some government intervention is inevitable and necessary, just the way it is. Conservatives and Liberals both only seem to have a problem with it when their "ideas" are the ones being targeted. I've lost count of the amount of times I've pointed out that exact double standard with posts on this site alone.
 

·
Mr. Special Snowflake.
Joined
·
13,177 Posts
I generally believe that when the government gets involved, they screw it up. Trump's big contribution to getting the vaccines produced was that he removed the bureaucracy to allow private industry to move quickly. What if the rules were rational from the start?

Like gun laws and tax laws, I think the whole thing should be reviewed and a sensible set of rules put in place. I think the problem is there are rules that have prevented a truly fair marketplace in the internet realm, as the lawmakers are slower than technology. So by having the government involved, the companies like Twiitter, Facebook, and Google have made monopolies and run large parts of the internet. Pandora's box is open, and now we are in a place where it seems like only more governement intervention can help.

Also, why are people willing to accept that some government intervention when it suites their interest is fine, but other is not. If Big Tech was run by conservatives that shut down liberal voices what would your response be?
I don't see any social media platform, or any other media for that matter, as an unbiased source for information. It all exists to make money for hte owners and/or push an agenda. As much as possible I prefer to dig to the actual source of information, and then decide if I believe that source.
 

·
Low Range Drifter
Joined
·
8,545 Posts
Mine would be the exact same response. You seem the be the one that is ok with some government intervention, but not others. You either get it, or you don't. The reality is, some government intervention is inevitable and necessary, just the way it is. Conservatives and Liberals both only seem to have a problem with it when their "ideas" are the ones being targeted. I've lost count of the amount of times I've pointed out that exact double standard with posts on this site alone.
I'm no anarchist. We need government, just much less of it. The fact that billions are spent to put a person in a job worth $400K/year shows how corrupt it is. Same goes for the legislative side of the house, and every state legislature. Those billions are spent for access and power.

I like my 19990s internet where big companies were a small slice and not the only game in town. Where local forums were hosted on small servers. I liked 1980s pre-internet where you dialed up the local BBS that maybe had fidonet or usenet to share info among nerds. No monetary value there, so no gov oversight.

I mean how many still connect to the internet by a fly-by-night firm? I'm guessing most are going thru Comcast, AT&T, Verrizon, T-mobile, or other large corporate entity? Oh did they work to make sure there were laws put in place to allow them to gather data on you and sell it? Can they provide it to the government? Oh, let me find an alternative.. oh wait.. you mean to tell me they consolidated access and there's no way of joining in unless you use a large service? Oh wait.. it will get better when the government installs free Wifi, right? sure.

I'm not worried about the smoke show of "free speech" on big social media platforms. I'm worried there's very few ways not to be a number in their big game. And government and tech are working together to make sure that's the case. How, by having huge donations to PACs that pay enough to put shitty people in government to do their bidding.

IMHO, the clamp down on non-vax and making them outcasts is the start. What's next? Once they realize they have the power, they will never relinquish it.
 

·
F-U-CANCER!!!
Joined
·
5,715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2,214 ·
I think everyone should get the vaccine, but I am not in favor of them forcing businesses to force it on their employees.
Are you in favor of "them" forcing individuals to get it? How about insurance companies not covering if people do not get it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,469 Posts
So you are in favor of the government telling businesses how to run their businesses?
No, absolutely not. But gov. have broken up companies that have gotten to large and create a monopoly to control the market. Big tech for example, is controlling free speech or censoring individuals from the freedom to express a different opinion than the narrative. We have doctors and medical professionals that disagree with the mandates having to do with vaccines and meds to combat the sickness and when they speak out about it they are shut down from expressing a different point of view. Usually when you are being shut down in that way it is the other side that has something to hide or they know they are on shaky ground that will not hold up to scrutiny. So they cancel you out and we see it happening all the time. It's called Cancel Culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,469 Posts
I'm no anarchist. We need government, just much less of it. The fact that billions are spent to put a person in a job worth $400K/year shows how corrupt it is. Same goes for the legislative side of the house, and every state legislature. Those billions are spent for access and power.

I like my 19990s internet where big companies were a small slice and not the only game in town. Where local forums were hosted on small servers. I liked 1980s pre-internet where you dialed up the local BBS that maybe had fidonet or usenet to share info among nerds. No monetary value there, so no gov oversight.

I mean how many still connect to the internet by a fly-by-night firm? I'm guessing most are going thru Comcast, AT&T, Verrizon, T-mobile, or other large corporate entity? Oh did they work to make sure there were laws put in place to allow them to gather data on you and sell it? Can they provide it to the government? Oh, let me find an alternative.. oh wait.. you mean to tell me they consolidated access and there's no way of joining in unless you use a large service? Oh wait.. it will get better when the government installs free Wifi, right? sure.

I'm not worried about the smoke show of "free speech" on big social media platforms. I'm worried there's very few ways not to be a number in their big game. And government and tech are working together to make sure that's the case. How, by having huge donations to PACs that pay enough to put shitty people in government to do their bidding.

IMHO, the clamp down on non-vax and making them outcasts is the start. What's next? Once they realize they have the power, they will never relinquish it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^This right here. They will never release that power once they get it. Freedoms once lost are never returned.
 

·
Mr. Special Snowflake.
Joined
·
13,177 Posts
Are you in favor of "them" forcing individuals to get it? How about insurance companies not covering if people do not get it?
If "them" is the government, no. But I do support restrictions that might treat a vaccinated person differently than an unvaccinated person for some limited situations. Insurance companies are already allowed to base coverage on risk factors, Why should this be different?
 

·
F-U-CANCER!!!
Joined
·
5,715 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2,218 ·
If "them" is the government, no. But I do support restrictions that might treat a vaccinated person differently than an unvaccinated person for some limited situations. Insurance companies are already allowed to base coverage on risk factors, Why should this be different?
It should be different because people can still be treated for things they got sick from after ignoring long term proof that it was not good for them. There is no long term proof for or against the vaccine.
 

·
Mr. Special Snowflake.
Joined
·
13,177 Posts
No, absolutely not. But gov. have broken up companies that have gotten to large and create a monopoly to control the market. Big tech for example, is controlling free speech or censoring individuals from the freedom to express a different opinion than the narrative. We have doctors and medical professionals that disagree with the mandates having to do with vaccines and meds to combat the sickness and when they speak out about it they are shut down from expressing a different point of view. Usually when you are being shut down in that way it is the other side that has something to hide or they know they are on shaky ground that will not hold up to scrutiny. So they cancel you out and we see it happening all the time. It's called Cancel Culture.
Any doctor or medical professional that uses some social media platform to promote their claims, rather than peer reviewed medical journals, I'm pretty much dismissing as quacks, looking for their 15 minutes to internet fame. Personally I don't care that much, since I do not go to any media for information or advice, especially not medical advice.
 

·
Mr. Special Snowflake.
Joined
·
13,177 Posts
It should be different because people can still be treated for things they got sick from after ignoring long term proof that it was not good for them. There is no long term proof for or against the vaccine.
Why do people think of vaccination as something new and radicle? It's been around for hundreds of years. The covid vaccine is not that different than any others.
 
2201 - 2220 of 2253 Posts
Top