Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
Stirlingsays 01 Jul 21 11.02pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
His day will come. I noticed the BBC have posted a couple of negative stories about Biden nothing earth shattering but one was about his health I think they (Democratic Party) are lining up Kamala to take over probably by invoking the 25th amendment at some point. Talk about a dog and pony soldier show.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 01 Jul 21 11.04pm | |
---|---|
I've never really gone with the 'Harris to take over' plan. Harris isn't a popular Democrat and they would be giving the Republicans their very best chance in 2024. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2021 11.06pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Jul 21 11.09pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
This is quite simply a one sided view. Everything you oppose, you claim is dangerous. How much more dangerous can you get than censoring opinion, including that of the former democratically elected POTUS. We have a few individuals deciding what we can see and how we should think. Once upon a time, we fought wars to stop that sort of stuff. Facts don't have sides, and what I have said is completely factual. No-one is being censored. Companies are removing people who break their rules. Don't break the rules, and you won't get removed. It's very easy to understand. Being elected does not transmit any automatic reason for what they say being regarded as any more accurate, or important, than anyone else. There are many other ways for any elected official to communicate, and no justification at all for it to become a law that the media companies must carry their words. Indeed, it's really important that the same tests apply to them as to everyone else, so their words can be seen in the same context as others. That applies to every flavour of political thought. So long as the same rules apply to all, it's a vital safeguard in today's world.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Jul 21 11.17pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
They’re still trying to determine the motivation behind the facts rather than the facts themselves. It's a wise and valuable precedent in today's world. No politician should be allowed unfettered access to a private company's platform. They need to meet the same standards as the rest of us. It has zilch to do with them taking decisions on our behalf. They do, and there are many ways they can reach out to explain their reasoning. Probing the data is what the opposition does and all of that, unless secret, gets reported to us.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 01 Jul 21 11.33pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It's a wise and valuable precedent in today's world. No politician should be allowed unfettered access to a private company's platform. They need to meet the same standards as the rest of us. It has zilch to do with them taking decisions on our behalf. They do, and there are many ways they can reach out to explain their reasoning. Probing the data is what the opposition does and all of that, unless secret, gets reported to us. Nonsense. It’s to do with not allowing a platform to people these companies don’t like. 720,000 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every day and 350,000 tweets per minute. Are they really checking them all?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Jul 21 11.34pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I've never really gone with the 'Harris to take over' plan. Harris isn't a popular Democrat and they would be giving the Republicans their very best chance in 2024. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2021 11.06pm) I think you are wrong. Harris is keeping a low profile, but has been handed the unenviable task of sorting out border security and the levels of illegal immigration. My understanding is that there will be a complete revamp of "ICE" with comprehensive retraining and a huge increase in their numbers with recruitment targetted at former citizens of Central American countries. Money will be directed to support the economies of those countries providing most of the wanna be immigrants. If Harris makes a good start with this and shows that, after decades of failure, the tide is turning, it will likely play well with moderate Republicans and the non-aligned. Harris holds many aces. She is a Democrat, so can count on a core support base. She is a woman, and for some women that will be enough. And, of course, there is her ethnicity. It would take an exceptionally charismatic GOP candidate to overcome those attributes, and I don't see any. All the likely ones carry significant baggage from the Trump years and prior to them.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 02 Jul 21 11.19am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Facts don't have sides, and what I have said is completely factual. No-one is being censored. Companies are removing people who break their rules. Don't break the rules, and you won't get removed. It's very easy to understand. Being elected does not transmit any automatic reason for what they say being regarded as any more accurate, or important, than anyone else. There are many other ways for any elected official to communicate, and no justification at all for it to become a law that the media companies must carry their words. Indeed, it's really important that the same tests apply to them as to everyone else, so their words can be seen in the same context as others. That applies to every flavour of political thought. So long as the same rules apply to all, it's a vital safeguard in today's world. You are either the most naive man on Earth or the most disingenuous.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
lefty27 ipswich 02 Jul 21 1.17pm | |
---|---|
Have to be honest I’m what most of you would call a lefty snowflake. That said I think the banning of Trump from Facebook etc sets a very very dangerous precedent. The fact is social media is more powerful and has the potential to influence, in fact has influenced elections is a real danger to democracy.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Jul 21 1.22pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You are either the most naive man on Earth or the most disingenuous. Given the competition here, let alone elsewhere, I somehow doubt that's true. Nevertheless, it's good to know I rate so highly in at least one category in your book. It makes a refreshing change to your usual negativity.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 02 Jul 21 1.24pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by lefty27
Have to be honest I’m what most of you would call a lefty snowflake. That said I think the banning of Trump from Facebook etc sets a very very dangerous precedent. The fact is social media is more powerful and has the potential to influence, in fact has influenced elections is a real danger to democracy. You’ve just done more to explain my position than I’ve managed in days so thank you very much.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Jul 21 1.29pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by lefty27
Have to be honest I’m what most of you would call a lefty snowflake. That said I think the banning of Trump from Facebook etc sets a very very dangerous precedent. The fact is social media is more powerful and has the potential to influence, in fact has influenced elections is a real danger to democracy. You definitely don't need FB to form opinions about people like Trump. People like him will force them on you in other ways. No business though should be forced to compromise its standards just because someone like Trump seeks attention by promulgating ideas designed to divide or harm the people who read them. The very fact that he gets banned helps you form an opinion about him.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 02 Jul 21 1.39pm | |
---|---|
I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us. Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.