Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

That Thread about US current events


Raavi

Recommended Posts

Halal Cyborg
13 minutes ago, Raavi said:

 

People choose to use Twitter or x company’s platform, people choose to share pictures of their meals or beach vacations because #blessed #hashtag. People can also choose to stop using these platform and/or take their “contributions” elsewhere. If Twitter starts rapidly losing users then before long there is no Twitter left, because Twitter will stop making money. That’s the beauty of private enterprise. The statist approach would be to regulate them out of business. But that’s not my cuppa. 

But this amongst the handful of other prominent platforms are fast becoming the only way to communicate in the current world...they could affectively suppress whatever they wanted and shape the status quo...I was surprised when they banned Trump...I agree he’s dangerous but theres plenty of other dangerous content going on unchecked in my personal opinion.

Edited by Halal Cyborg
Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

The internet vs. free speech debate is tricky.  

I'm an American dude who works in technology.  If I created a platform that allowed people to share personal information like vacation photos and favorite recipes I would be very strict about what can be presented. 

 

I actually have some background in this:  I once ran a popular website with one other dude that provided resources for people in the machinima world.   He was way more strict than I when it came to content.  No dildos and adult material was allowed.  We lost a lot of skilled content providers.

 

 

It really just boils down to people.  People will always find a way to sour something.  The internet + people = an ever evolving mix of craziness changing the world at a pace we as humans aren't equipt to process.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Reameb

There's barely any if at all regulations for those big tech corporations regarding the use of user data, no one protects the user and their terms of service can get to absurd, passive aggressive and creepy levels. The fact they're losing people and that millions of people are moving to other platforms is a good thing, this is the opportunity for these platforms or upcoming ones, to create more options instead of the basically monopoly these f*ckers have.

 

Still, there's no helping those willingly posting every minute of their life online, if you give away your info, you're dumb af lmao.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Halal Cyborg

Personally I deleted everything except Linked in as it serves a purpose for me.

 

I do use TikTok which is disturbing as anything but tbh i get a lot out of it...it is like an echo chamber though...I like and comment on Pro Israel content then that’s all see...I deliberately try to just like cooking and car stuff to feed the algorithm.

 

I have reported Holocaust denial and it stays up though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
9 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

But this amongst the handful of other prominent platforms are fast becoming the only way to communicate in the current world...they could affectively suppress whatever they wanted and shape the status quo...I was surprised when they banned Trump...I agree he’s dangerous but theres plenty of other dangerous content going on unchecked in my personal opinion.

 

Are they though? I don’t use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. The sole platform I use is LinkedIn, and I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything. I’m beginning to sound like a broken record but if they want to remove content then that is their prerogative as a private business, as it is their users to seek another platform. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Polynoid

Whatever happens in USA, there are countries that watch the events with certain snark.

Here's the final scene from Brother 2, that was shown on Russian TV right before a 8pm news.

The final score being put on the pictures of the unrests, was completely by accident. Yet, you can imagine Bodrov looking out from the window at the commotion.

It's not only Russia, mind you, USA had trampled on many feet. And still, there will be changes and IMO, not pleasant ones.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Halal Cyborg
7 minutes ago, Polynoid said:

Whatever happens in USA, there are countries that watch the events with certain snark.

Here's the final scene from Brother 2, that was shown on Russian TV right before a 8pm news.

The final score being put on the pictures of the unrests, was completely by accident. Yet, you can imagine Bodrov looking out from the window at the commotion.

It's not only Russia, mind you, USA had trampled on many feet. And still, there will be changes and IMO, not pleasant ones.

Are we going to see the USA lose its place as the pop cultural leader of the world off the back of this? 
 

Is this their empire crumbling?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Polynoid
32 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

Are we going to see the USA lose its place as the pop cultural leader of the world off the back of this? 
 

Is this their empire crumbling?

Empires tend to crumble at some point. But it's a bit early to say that, maybe they'll work it out. The Democrat Party are reasonable people, after all.😏

Edited by Polynoid
Link to post
Share on other sites
trip
30 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

Is this their empire crumbling?

No.  The system is designed to not corrupt...and as much as it sucks to be an American during such an historic stain,  it will iron out.  

 

The various elections throughout all the layers of our political system really does help keep some sort of balance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.

 

2 hours ago, Raavi said:

If you don’t agree with how they moderate their platform, then it is your prerogative to find a different platform whom’s content moderation you do agree with.

 

jp9r8upf1ea61.png

 

Also, the UN is irrelevant in any serious conversation.

Edited by E.A.B.
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
5 minutes ago, E.A.B. said:

That works fine and dandy until the three mega tech companies take down your platform in a day

Frankly I'm surprised that the policy decision makers behind Parler didn't see it coming given the small-L-liberal sensibilities of big tech and look at offloading to a provider with less of an extensive history of doing what they apparently got blindsided by happening.

 

To be honest, though, big tech can't win. Facebook et al were homes for extremism and violence for years until regulatory pressures forced them to actually address it, and now they're being chastised for deplatforming the same people they were threatened with regulatory repercussions for giving platforms to...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
7 minutes ago, E.A.B. said:

 

 

jp9r8upf1ea61.png

 

Also, the UN is irrelevant in any serious conversation.

 

The meme doesn’t even make sense because Google, Apple and AWS booted Parler, not Twitter. Furthermore, neither company has any obligation to host x app / website. They’re free to contract with whomever they please. If Parler can’t survive, then Parler ought to reassess their business model. Or find a company willing to host them. Gab managed.

 

Where did I mention the UN?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
4 minutes ago, Raavi said:

 

Furthermore, neither company has any obligation to host x app / website. They’re free to contract with whomever they please. If Parler can’t survive, then Parler ought to reassess their business model. Or find a company willing to host them. Gab managed.

Well quite. I've always found it odd that those on the right who tend to advocate laissez-faire capitalism suddenly get cold feet when it starts threatening platforms they hold dear.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fake Lilina
8 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

Trumpanzees

29cdlybqufl01.jpg

 

Sorry, I had to. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • fir thi bairns 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
FanEu7

I have to say in a way its amusing to see the US get embarrassed like this considering they love to support coups/insurgencies all over the world. Feels like karma

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
3 minutes ago, FanEu7 said:

I have to say in a way its amusing to see the US get embarrassed like this considering they love to support coups/insurgencies all over the world. Feels like karma

 

Germany had him figured out in 2017.

trump_stern1-714x955.jpg

 

It's only now we've seen the Capitol Hill events, do we see how close they were.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.

Dookie decision makers.

 

I accidentally hit reply on that and was gonna DECIMATE you with a FIERY response btw. It was going to make it into the "owning the libs" compilations on youtube.

 

Quote

The problem is that the only evidence you've presented to support this assertion- the monitoring of journalists and the global surveillance disclosures- don't actually support the premise, largely because they're activities that predate Obama and have continued unabated since. 

 

I mentioned the unsanctioned war and could've mentioned the individual mandate. There's a lot to pick on. But I also never said any of this is exclusive to Obama. It's funny that I keep agreeing with you on everything because I never claimed otherwise.

 

Quote

Human Freedom Index 2016. United States achieved a personal freedom score of 8.79 and an overall ranking of 28/159

Human Freedom Index 2020. United States achieved a personal freedom score of 8.66 and an overall ranking of 29/162

 

A little unfair to compare different years. I can cite years where Obama was lower than Trump on that same index. A better metric is judging the average, where Obama is 8.75 and Trump is 8.70. And I'll give you that, but I prefer Freedom House's because they actually tell you their conclusions and delve into their methodology. It's easier to gauge how they reached conclusions and their biases. Trump didn't fare any better by their metrics either, btw.

 

The most I could find was an NPR article on the findings:

 

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/714625907/the-u-s-now-ranks-as-a-problematic-place-for-journalists

 

The report also pointed a finger at President Trump who, it said, "exacerbates" press freedom problems with his repeated declarations that journalists are an "enemy of the American people," his accusations of "fake news," his calls to revoke broadcasting licenses and his efforts to block specific outlets from access to the White House.

 

"The president's relentless attacks against the press has created an environment where verbal, physical and online threats and assault against journalists are becoming normalized," RSF Interim Executive Director Sabine Dolan tells NPR.

She calls the situation in the United States "unprecedented" but says Trump enhanced an environment that had already declined under President Barack Obama.

 

"Even before President Trump, the Obama administration was aggressively using the 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than any previous administration combined," she says.

 

I'm not a fan of measuring something you can't define anyway, much less putting a quantitative value on it. There's implicit bias in the methodology and questions themselves. CATO measures the size of government as a measure of freedom. I'm going to assume you're further on the left than right on the political spectrum, and I'd imagine that marginal tax rates and higher government spending being implicitly 'less freedomy' isn't something you agree with, which CATO dings governments for in their index. In formulating research papers and studies I realized that in social science you can just as easily come to different conclusions on the same topics because it isn't a 'hard science'. That's why The Heritage foundation can rank Hong Kong and Singapore as the most economically free, whilst Freedom House lists them as 'partly free'.

 

I know why Trump was dinged on some of his ratings: his adversarial nature with the press. If you were to watch the propaganda on CNN or MSNBC you'd know why. And I have no problem with him doing that. But I'll give you that based on their methodology the HFI ranks Trump lower on average.

 

Quote

"Shadow Government" comments were specifically referring to changes under EO13957 which is specifically designed to undermine the nonpartisan professional nature of vast swathes of the US civil service and embed Trump loyalists in newly designated "apolitical" positions.

 

Dude, again, I'm tired of this being somehow exclusive to the Trump administration

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/27/78-obama-appointees-burrowed-career-jobs-watchdog-/

 

You have to realize what publication you're reading. You do realize the Washington Post is an untrustworthy source of news, right? Should I link breitbart in my arguments? Obama appointees literally did the same.

 

What's disheartening is that people will read the Washington Post or watch CNN and form a narrative about political issues and be fully convinced in their veracity. I'm not saying Trump's practice is something I agree with, or that a report from the Washington Post is all lies and should be ignored because "fake news". There is no such thing as 'fake news', there is only biased reporting. And hey, I watch Ben Shapiro, I understand bias in reporting and how you can tell your side whilst it not being a lie. But you have to be more discerning than this. In a conversation about both administrations the point is moot because Obama did the same thing. Let's not heed the Washington Post's alarming cries about something they were never worried about when Obama did it.

 

Quote

Except I never made the claim that Trump was "first" to do this; it's an obvious straw man.

 

pfft then why even bring it up.

 

The reason me and you are in this debate is because someone claimed something about Trump being a fascist, and I said that as recent as the previous administration we had funky sh*t going on. Your points have been about how Trump is bad and certain actions are either exclusive to his administration or have been heightened during it. A decent amount of your points I've refuted by saying it's either nothing new or nothing exclusive to the Trump admin. You're talking about typical government corruption and I do not understand why.

 

Quote

I think you would be hard pushed to make any kind of coherent evidence-based assertion that he was more authoritarian (a key requirement of fascism) especially given that external measures of personal and political freedom have shown both have declined in the US since Obama. When it comes to the other key characteristics of fascism- trying to overturn legally cast ballots, urging state leaders to overrule the will of the people; attempting to establish pet judiciaries (which thankfully appears to have failed) and so on. I mean neither is really close to dictatorial power in objective terms but I would say Trump definitely has a far lower orbit here, especially given the actions since his electoral defeat. Ultranationalism? I wouldn't even describe Obama as an ordinary nationalist as he's far more of a globalist; Trump however is a firm believer in American cultural and ideological supremacy, promotion of autarky and protectionism, et cetera.

 

What other core characteristics of fascism do you believe Obama exhibits to a greater degree than Trump?

 

i will quote myself before I answer:

 

Quote

I don't know what's so hard to understand because I made it abundantly clear in my prior posts that Obama wasn't a fascist. 'Closest' does not mean 'he was a fascist'.

 

If I had a lineup of 30 priests-all good men. And I had to decide which was the 'closest' to satan, I'd pick the guy that got the mail 3 minutes late. That does not mean he is anything near what Satan is, or even evil whatsoever. But he is the "closest". It's like people only read what they want to.

 

I even used the modifier 'recent history' because I understand he wasn't a fascist destroying America, but the point was that he pulled off some sh*t that exceeds some guy sh*tposting on Twitter.

 

I know you said "more authoritarian", and I appreciate that. I just want to clarify that I don't think Obama was a fascist and I don't want anyone to think I'm even trying to argue that.

 

We can go back and forth on this one since there's no objective way to gauge it. I agree that Trump's electoral shenanigans since taking a big fat L have been ridiculous. Apart from his phone call with the Georgia governor though, I wouldn't necessarily call it authoritarian. There are legal processes for checking elections that are available to candidates, and he went through available legal avenues. I'm actually surprised Hillary didn't do the same given that she's still roaming the forest claiming she's the rightful president. It's his recent call with a Georgia governor where he says he 'needs 11k votes' or some such that is definitely on that authoritarian ledge.

 

Anyway, Trump is definitely a nationalist. But a nationalist does not make a fascist alone. It's actually funny hearing him criticized over his basic ass platform of "I love America" as indicative of fascism. The only difference between him and any other candidate is that he says it more and puts it on hats. It's actually detrimental to Obama to say that Trump was more nationalistic; as if Obama didn't love his country as much. But for the question itself, I already mentioned an unsanctioned war with no congressional approval.

 

How many wars did Trump get us into? I could bitch about the individual mandate and-you know what, I don't even have to do much other than repeat my points becasue I won't have them dismissed as if they're 'not that big of a deal'. yes, spying on reporters is a big deal. Putting them on criminal lists is a big deal. But I can add a bit more to that:

 

https://www.cjr.org/criticism/barack_obamas_press_freedom_legacy.php

 

“This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said Sanger in a 2013 CPJ report, “The Obama Administration and the Press.” The report’s author, former Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr., declared, “The administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.” As journalists often note, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all former presidents combined.

 

https://freedom.press/news/obama-used-espionage-act-put-record-number-reporters-sources-jail-and-trump-could-be-even-worse/

 

Between 1917 and 2009, only one person was convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking to a news organization.

But the Obama administration was determined to change that. Under pressure from Congress and intelligence agencies, Attorney General Eric Holder directed the Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute government employees who discussed classified information with reporters. In 2012, after news organizations reported on U.S. drone strikes and attempts to disable Iranian nuclear reactors, Holder assigned two U.S. attorneys to track down the journalists’ sources.

President Barack Obama strongly supported Holder’s war against journalists’ sources, despite once promising to protect whistleblowers when in office and running for president on the national security scandals of the Bush administration — misdeeds that became public only because of leaks.

 

Quote

Trump telling what was in effect a heavily armed militia to "go wild" in his name

 

I'm sincerely asking here and this isn't some sort of snide remark: so, that tweet in question was something along the lines of, "BIG RALLY IN DC! WE WON'T LET THEM STEAL THE ELECTION FROM US! TURN UP, LETS GO WILD!"

 

Characterizing it as "he is telling people to bring guns and burn it down" is purposefully misleading and indicative of the headlines unreliable sources posted. But my actual question is: did he know there were heavily armed militias coming? Because if he knew people were coming with weaponry, it gives you a level of credence. Not total credence, since people on the right showing up with guns at rally's isn't necessarily something new or extreme. But you're insinuating that Trump knew people were coming with weaponry, in organized militarty  groups, and he was telling them to take over the capital.

 

Is that what you are positing? I really want you to answer this because it's a heavy claim to make. If true, its very damaging to Trump.

 

Quote

So you don't really want to contribute to the discussion, you're just here for the whataboutism? Gotcha.

 

Man that's a funny way of sidestepping what I said and/or misreading it.

 

I said that I'm calling out hypocrisy, and you said that's not a proper rebuttal. I said "rebuttal to what, I'm not arguing that these riots are ok because previous ones were deemed to be ok".

 

Go read my original post; I think you think that I somehow support the riots on capitol hill and am defending them by citing the approval of prior riots

 

 

You know, my wife was looking at me and said, "you know how stupid it is to waste this much time on posts and researching when no one will agree with what the other is saying". Quit hounding me big dick sivispacem. :miranda:

 

  • YEE 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Craigsters

FBI warns 'armed protests' being planned at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC

 

(CNN)The FBI has received information indicating "armed protests" are being planned at all 50 state capitols and the US Capitol in Washington, DC in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, according to an internal bulletin obtained by CNN.

"Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January," it says.

 

more reading here

Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.
2 hours ago, Raavi said:

 

The meme doesn’t even make sense because Google, Apple and AWS booted Parler, not Twitter. Furthermore, neither company has any obligation to host x app / website. They’re free to contract with whomever they please. If Parler can’t survive, then Parler ought to reassess their business model. Or find a company willing to host them. Gab managed.

 

Where did I mention the UN?

 

I know, but the idea still has a level of truth.

 

Also, I never said any company has any obligation to host any content. I've never believed that. But I could see why someone would want to do some anti-trust f*ckery if three companies have this much power. I could definitely see that. There's also been longstanding talks of revoking 203  protection for sites like Twitter from both sides of the aisle. I'd love to see that as well. Twitter lost 4 billion dollars today iirc so something is happening, cause that Trump banning was BS. At least, based on the stated reasons.

 

The UN was on that vid up there someone posted as if they're in any way relevant or important enough to consider. Just on an enforcement level its a joke.

 

 

THEY SCAPEGOATING HOMELESS PEOPLE NOW

Edited by E.A.B.
  • YEE 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Laura91
38 minutes ago, Craigsters said:

FBI warns 'armed protests' being planned at all 50 state capitols and in Washington DC

 

(CNN)The FBI has received information indicating "armed protests" are being planned at all 50 state capitols and the US Capitol in Washington, DC in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on January 20, according to an internal bulletin obtained by CNN.

"Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January," it says.

 

more reading here

 

These nutcases need to back off. They are going to get f*cked up if they escalate this. I like how they talk about "1776 will rise again". Nope. Don't count on it. They will get squashed. Yeah, you have some people in positions of authority that back Cheeto. But, many others that don't. This could end up being a bloodbath.

  • KEKW 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.

 

Alright, I'm seeing names that I wouldn't expect to see with this purge going on.

 

What did Ron Paul do other than appear in "ITS HAPPENING" memes. I don't follow this boomer but it better be a good reason, otherwise this is getting scary. I would NOT expect him to be purged.

 

Maybe these dudes were right about the whole, "first they came for Alex Jones" thing

Edited by E.A.B.
  • YEE 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
1 hour ago, E.A.B. said:

Also, I never said any company has any obligation to host any content. I've never believed that. But I could see why someone would want to do some anti-trust f*ckery if three companies have this much power. I could definitely see that.

 

I don’t know if it was intentional, but anti-trust f*ckery is a very apt descriptor. How it is being used now is tantamount to an unguided missile that ignores practical efficacy in exchange for short term political brownie points. By the time they would have successfully broken up these tech giants (as quite a few are chomping at the bits to do), the online landscape will look vastly different and other issues will have arisen. Put plainly, jackhammer style anti-trust is the wrong tool for the job. It is also a gift to China which would vastly outgun these freshly broken up tech giants with their own state-fortified tech giants.

 

1 hour ago, E.A.B. said:

There's also been longstanding talks of revoking 203  protection for sites like Twitter from both sides of the aisle. I'd love to see that as well. Twitter lost 4 billion dollars today iirc so something is happening, cause that Trump banning was BS. At least, based on the stated reasons.

 

Speaking of jackhammers. If you want to kill the industry then revoking Section 230 is a very efficient way to do it. It would force social media companies to either moderate content before being posted or ban enormous swaths of content to keep everything clean and uncontroversial. If despite their best efforts something were to slip through the cracks, they’d be liable. That’s an unworkable situation and would practically decimate social media as we know it overnight. Once again, wrong tool for the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
E.A.B.
28 minutes ago, Raavi said:

It would force social media companies to either moderate content before being posted or ban enormous swaths of content to keep everything clean and uncontroversial.

 

So what'd be the difference.

 

I'm being a little facetious here, but they already take extreme measures for the latter and they're netting themselves by-partisan enemies. They've banned newspaper organizations before because of selective enforcement of their TOS. Anyone remember the NY Post ban because they talked about Joe Biden's son before an election. They used some BS reason about hacked material.

 

“I honestly don't see how they think that they can get away with this kind of naked hypocrisy because where were they when The New York Times just two weeks ago published, leaked or should we say ‘hacked’ tax returns from the president, Donald Trump?” she asked. “No problem there.”

 

Jack had to step in and turn 180 on it cause he realized how stupid it was

 

 

Twitter needs to get it together. When people start looking at you sideways in the room and start whispering something's gonna happen. I can't tell if they're acting like this to gain favor with the incoming administration or if they've just always had these biases and are acting on them more fiercely than before because of the tacit approval of Biden and the media.

 

Quote

I don’t know if it was intentional, but anti-trust f*ckery is a very apt descriptor. How it is being used now is tantamount to an unguided missile that ignores practical efficacy in exchange for short term political brownie points. By the time they would have successfully broken up these tech giants (as quite a few are chomping at the bits to do), the online landscape will look vastly different and other issues will have arisen. Put plainly, jackhammer style anti-trust is the wrong tool for the job. It is also a gift to China which would vastly outgun these freshly broken up tech giants with their own state-fortified tech giants.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of Reddit's largest investors Chinese? And isn't Tik Tok already spying on every American. I wouldn't worry about China.

 

Matter of fact lets brake these f*ckers up I invest heavily in Chinese companies. I wanna see that green line go to the moon.

 

Follow me on Weibo or however the hell you spell it

Edited by E.A.B.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Craigsters

Parler sues Amazon for cutting off its services

 

(CNN Business)Parler, the alternative social media platform favored by the far-right, sued Amazon on Monday in response to being deplatformed, alleging an antitrust violation, breach of contract and interference with the company's business relationships with users.

 
The complaint asks a federal court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Amazon (AMZN) and calls Amazon Web Services' decision a "death blow" to Parler.
"Without AWS, Parler is finished as it has no way to get online," the complaint said. "And a delay of granting this TRO by even one day could also sound Parler's death knell as President Trump and others move on to other platforms."
Parler's lawsuit argues that Amazon has unlawfully sought to restrain competition by eliminating a player from the market.
It also claims Amazon breached its contract with Parler by not providing Parler 30 days' notice of termination -- and that its actions interfere with Parler's relationships with current and future users.
In a letter obtained by CNN Business that was sent to Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff on Saturday, Amazon Web
Services said that in recent weeks it has reported 98 examples to Parler of "posts that clearly encourage and incite violence." The letter includes screenshots of several examples.
 
"We've seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," AWS wrote. "It's clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service."
Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment concerning the lawsuit.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

 

1 hour ago, E.A.B. said:

 

So what'd be the difference.

 

I'm being a little facetious here, but they already take extreme measures for the latter. They've banned newspaper organizations before because of selective enforcement of their TOS. Anyone remember the NY Post ban because they talked about Joe Biden's son before an election. They used some BS reason about hacked material.

 

The difference is now they do so sparingly and can reverse course when a situation like the one below occurs, without 230 they’d have to do it for everything. Which would mean not only would the NY Post get the boot, but any account that dares post anything of a laundry list of controversial topics. Which would before long lose them all those users and would quickly kill the platform. 

 

Quote

 

“I honestly don't see how they think that they can get away with this kind of naked hypocrisy because where were they when The New York Times just two weeks ago published, leaked or should we say ‘hacked’ tax returns from the president, Donald Trump?” she asked. “No problem there.”

 

Jack had to step in and turn 180 on it cause he realized how stupid it was

 

 

Yeah that was a giant f*ckup, no argument there. 

 

Quote

Twitter needs to get it together. When people start looking at you sideways in the room and start whispering something's gonna happen. I can't tell if they're acting like this to gain favor with the incoming administration or if they've just always had these biases and are acting on them more fiercely than before because of the tacit approval of Biden and the media.

 

 

I would say that latter reason definitely played a role. I mean, they’re not blind. they can see that regulatory efforts are heating up, and now that the dems get a more or less unbridled go at it with majorities in both chambers and the presidency - they know who to curry favor with. At least for 2 years. But it’s not just that, what you have to remember is that Twitter and [insert any big company here] are not altruists, they’re not doing anything because they’re #woke or because their C-suite consists of a Kumbaya circle. They make decisions because it makes business sense. I am convinced that if popular sentiment and by extension the advertising industry swung in the direction of right wing ideas, so would their actions. Same goes for these god awful social media campaigns where they change their logo to a rainbow or a black circle or some sh*t. Which never fails to make me want to barf. 

 

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of Reddit's largest investors Chinese? And isn't Tik Tok already spying on every American. I wouldn't worry about China.

 

Matter of fact lets brake these f*ckers up I invest heavily in Chinese companies. I wanna see that green line go to the moon.

 

Follow me on Weibo or however the hell you spell it

 

They pretty recently got a big investment from Tencent correct. Though, I would worry about China. I’d rather get f*cked over by a US based company that at least has some semblance of accountability, even if usually wrapped up in opaque arbitration clauses with equally opaque procedures. Good luck finding as much as a hint of recourse in China, all the while your data and god forbid you pay them, money, is being slurped up by the Chinese state for use in one of many of Pooh’s lol human rights pet projects.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.