Grassroots is an archaic structure that doesn’t work. Top-down government is the best.
3 Likes
that’s a very romantic concept/view, but it’s not, nor has ever been the way any governing has been done or decided
and is the exact reason why not just through history but even modern years, some “horrible” ripple effects happen, especially the larger a population/“country” grows.
(and i think tossing in the UN is a horrendous example to include in your point)
governing/politics politics has “always” been a richman’s things. Heck america was founded and constitution made from the pov of you having 0 input if you didn’t own property. And it’s “always” been like that, in “any” country. The wealthy use their means to influence things, or obtain power, and then proceed to create and enforce a loop that maintains those things to their benefit, wealth∞power.
Granted sometimes you have nobody commoner underdog coming out of left field, or the “masses” eventually rise up enough to prop up one of their own. But still the loop continues to exist and be maintained, and these days even many of the “well meaning”/Joe Avg gets “corrupted” in the end and becomes part of that loop, and “tweak” things to their own advantage, abandoning those grass roots they originated from/their “principles”.
hell the most glaring thing to highlight that in “today’s world”, aside from politicians/“public servants” having ridiculous better terms than 99% other public employees, could be something like that it’s legally allowed to “bribe” politicians and parties outright, (and you don’t even have to be a citizen/“person” to do so)…
3 Likes
4 Likes
So something I noticed about your link:
“utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=politics_2020-election&linkId=110717147”
This makes it appear you got this off Twitter. Your responses to me suggest to me that you primarily read only to that heading. I know that I originally stopped at the heading “The Architect” because I was limited on time and I thought it was going to take another 30mins or so to finish. Your responses to other people suggest that I will not sway your opinion by replying bit by bit.
That being said, I’m not here to argue whether you read it or not nor argue who’s right as I don’t think we’ll accomplish anything. Rather, I would ask that you take some time to return to the article and reread it. Don’t skim over it, but read what the author put together. I know the article is spun to be left biased, but the information should still be there.
If rereading doesn’t change your opinion, that’s okay. If rereading does change your opinion, that’s also okay. I don’t anyone here is going to call you out if you change your opinion or not.
Lastly, I don’t really expect you to reply to this post because I don’t really think it’s necessary to do so. What you choose to do is ultimately up to you.
4 Likes
2 Likes
The issue here is section 230 giving protection to Big Tech for not being a ‘publisher’ when in fact they are regulating what is and is not on their platform (eg allowing the same content from a political party or user that they agree with but not allowing it with something they do not agree with). In other words, they’re acting as a publisher and should be held accountable and to the same standard as one yet they are not. This allows them to sway opinions with the monopoly in the market that they have.
Also take a look at some of these ‘fact checks’ Big Tech put in place that are not even facts but conjecture. Then you have the exact opposing opinion not getting a similar fact check. It’s bias to the extreme. It’d be different if they did not have hold a monopoly in the market, buying out all the competitors for the last decade+
Then you have Google, the likes, suppressing information, and by this, swaying opinions, as well.
I agree with you that we “should let the ignorant idiots discern their own crap, and make their misguided/uninformed actions” etc BUT when it is at a massive scale that even educated people who live in the ‘age of social media’ and ‘MSM’ that they only want quick and fast information, and that somehow makes up their mind and it is now determined to be the absolute truth. People no longer research to form an actual educated opinion. They regurgitate the same lies even after it’s been proven false. And at other times, when two or more completely different opinions are given on what they believe, they spew hate. It’s a sad and scary state of conditioning.
I believe you hinted toward lobbyists in your later posts in this thread. Outside of lobbyists, you also have Facebook giving $400mil+ to key swing states with special stipulations that, to get this money, you have to do A B & C. When that money is filtered in, and put to use, in only one political party demographic, by design, then we have a problem. It’s illegal. I wish lobbyists in all form and function was illegal ;p
I believe I’ve stated it on this forum at one point: I do not support either, at the time, the Presidential candidates, but nothing will be settled in this country until a complete forensic audit is performed and the courts hear the evidence. And even then, -shrugs-, the courts are not shielded from corruption.
Another thing I will state about my position that is off-topic, sort of/maybe/kind of/maybe not with how this thread has gone, lol,… is when you have people making state laws that is not the state legislature - which is illegal - then certain actions that followed these make believe laws should be null and void. Somehow they were not made null and void. Most likely due to corrupt money and power but still… to be out in the open like that and no one does anything about it is a shame.
2 Likes
the problem there, at least in its current form, is that’s not what publisher means, legally at least. And is both why 230 doesn’t work there/trying to fend off “social media censorship” (otherwise it would have been successful in court multiple times already) - and is why as i understand it there are some that want to “tweak” 230 to include such as social media platforms under that umbrella (tho i’m also guessing that’s unlikely to succeed)
on that we can easily agree 
4 Likes
That’s the concern with Section 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” When you host a public forum and are moderating the content, you’re effectively a publisher.
And yes, there is a lot of political figures, from both sides of the isle, whom wish to reform 230 (for completely different reasons mind you, lol, yet they mostly agree about the publisher part). I would hope it would be reformed for the betterment of all, but I lack faith that a reform would do any good at this point. Ahh, lol (edit: meaning that any reform would just be much worse than it already is 
)
I wish I knew more of the inner workings of other countries. I wish I knew more about my own country. At the end of the day we have to smile, laugh, and love. Group hug! 
2 Likes
^ c 2
also snagged a quote from Wiki (iknow, eyeroll scoff whatever, but it’s condensed an “in one place”)
Legal experts have criticized the Republicans’ push to make Section 230 encompass platform neutrality. Wyden stated in response to potential law changes that “Section 230 is not about neutrality. Period. Full stop. 230 is all about letting private companies make their own decisions to leave up some content and take other content down.”[68] Kosseff has stated that the Republican intentions are based on a “fundamental misunderstanding” of Section 230’s purpose, as platform neutrality was not one of the considerations made at the time of passage.[69] Kosseff stated that political neutrality was not the intent of Section 230 according to the framers, but rather making sure providers had the ability to make content-removal judgement without fear of liability.[23] There have been concerns that any attempt to weaken Section 230 could actually cause an increase in censorship when services lose their exemption from liability.[59][70]
Attempts to bring damages to tech companies for apparent anti-conservative bias in courts, arguing against Section 230 protections, have generally failed. A lawsuit brought by the non-profit Freedom’s Watch in 2018 against Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple on antitrust violations for using their positions to create anti-conservative censorship was dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2020, with the judges ruling that censorship can only apply to First Amendment rights blocked by the government and not by private entities
aaand there’s you problem 
tbh i can’t say i disagree, Big Gov can’t tell tv networks or newspapers to be neutral or force them to host politicians/people of opposite views or counterpoints to their message, why should they be allowed to restrict “the web”, just because “Big Tech” don’t want play with them at recess…
Make your own twitter… or better yet, ban social media completely 
4 Likes
A few things from Wiki but the most notable, and only thing I’ll comment on ( ), is where they mention ‘Republican’. It should state both major parties as both have officially expressed concerns in Senate hearings on a/or of a, per Wiki, “fundamental misunderstanding”
Okay, Ill comment on another but in favor, haha: one of my biggest worry with any sort of reform: more censorship.
A publisher can be held liable for anything that appears within its content. If you’re going to promote one side but not another, if you’re going to specifically target a certain area with different content, etc… At the same token, I do understand distributor liability… how’re you going to read Everything?! Then again, if you are going to take the editorial stance on say 15% of content that appears on your platform and say screw the rest, or review 30% of your content to slap some whack ‘this is my opinion on this topic but I am going to call it a fact check’… misleading. Almost like the case Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy where Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its guidelines of content and screening software. Prodigy was a “publisher” and not a “distributor” therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site.
I am an Independent. I also agree with views from all across the political spectrum. I am also a big fan of being 100% fair. I want fairness across the board for all. All species! 
ban social media completely: yes please, haha. I agree with your comment. I ban it from my life 95% of a year ;p
2 Likes
wasn’t that what spawned 230 tho
thus doesn’t apply anymore
and is why 230 c explicitly states that the provider isn’t considered publisher in such examples/for user content - and has free exorcise to moderate as they please
and is that key paragraph some people want “snipped”
3 Likes
Yuppers. That and I think a Yahoo case in the 90’s?
3 Likes
I was just re-educating Delenn.
4 Likes
such as…?
I looked that up, and it seems the donation was just for election stuff in general (buying ballot boxes, paying poll workers, etc.); nothing nefarious or one-sided.
Facebook magnate Mark Zuckerberg and his wife gave a nonprofit $400 million to pay election workers, train poll workers and rent polling locations for the Nov. 3 vote in various states.
The majority of the gift, $250 million, will go to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonprofit popular with many tech philanthropists, which will then regrant the money to local election officials so they can recruit poll workers, supply them with personal protective equipment, and set up drive-through voting. Another $50 million heads to The Center for Election Innovation & Research to be distributed to Secretaries of State across the country.
The money will pay for protective equipment to prevent spread of the coronavirus at polling sites, drive-thru voting locations, equipment to process mail ballots and more.
The documents show requests mainly focused on the logistics of the election: increased pay for poll workers, expanded early voting sites and extra equipment to more quickly process millions of mailed ballots.
I mean, for someone complaining about others just regurgitating hearsay and not doing research, you seem to be doing the same thing.
2 Likes
I am convinced comrade. Praise to the party!
3 Likes
Okay, you’ve cited MSM. Now find the other sides findings and then find the middle where they both elaborate where this money was spent, how you could get the money, etc.
Find out where the money was spent demographically. It’s sad that the stipulations were put in place to favor one party when this is blatantly illegal.
Same goes when state laws are changed by non-state legislators yet no one is, at this point, being held accountable.
“I mean, for someone complaining about others just regurgitating hearsay and not doing research, you seem to be doing the same thing.” erm, okay 
Good day and much love to you. 
2 Likes
And once again: if you have issues with someone I suggest solving it through private messages.
4 Likes
At least I cited SOMETHING, so how about you show me the research you did for a change? Show me exactly where the other side’s findings are and what the partisan stipulations were (because the only stipulations I found were strictly non-partisan: poll worker salary, ballot box purchases, etc.). Which specific fact-checks are nothing but conjecture, and how can we tell so we can spot future conjectures? Show me all the times state laws were changed by “non-state legislators” recently (and yet somehow still enforced by the state?). I’m not denying that I have blind spots, but right now, the burden of proof is on you.
You won’t convince anyone if all you do is spread unsubstantiated claims, spout buzzwords/phrases like “do your research,” and ask loaded questions. If you really do know something I don’t, show me exactly where and how you found out about it, like I did for you in my last post.
1 Like
I am not trying to convince anyone
2 Likes
who would buy this, and why ? 
2 Likes