Why wouldn't it be legal for social media platforms to ban people for breaking the rules over and over again. despite multiple warnings? Warnings that even kids can understand and abide by?
Personally I don't think this is reasonable but at least it technically falls within the realm of what a law could conceivably do. Along with having a reasonable conversation of what social media does in general. Unlike a discussion about private companies breaking other individual's constitutional rights where you are by default at screaming monkeys levels of coherence.
Personally I don't think this is reasonable but at least it technically falls within the realm of what a law could conceivably do. Along with having a reasonable conversation of what social media does in general. Unlike a discussion about private companies breaking other individual's constitutional rights where you are by default at screaming monkeys levels of coherence.
How is it not reasonable? If a member breaks a rule on a forum over and over and incites flame wars, wouldn't you want to ban them? Social media platforms still have rules that they let users know when they sign up, so if anything it should be on the users for not abiding by them....
To me the issue is that a discussion about the first amendment and it applying to private entities is extremely stupid. It's nonsense. How it goes nowadays is pretty much this:
Some asshole: TwItTeR iS vIoLaTiNg ThE fIrSt AmEnDmEnT!
Some other asshole: That's not how that works.
Some asshole: CoMMuNiSt!
It'd be different if the discussion was something like "Wait, should it be legal for privately owned businesses to ban people from using their products" or some variation of that but at the level the people railing against social media companies argue this it's impossible to have anything even resembling a coherent conversation. Because to even get to a coherent conversation about this you have to first get them to understand the sheer nonsense they are coming from.
It's fine, because they start out with the same right to share their voice on that platform as everyone else, provided they don't violate terms of service (TOS). Once they violate TOS, they have forfeited their right to use that platform. And they have to accept this before joining the platform, because those are the conditions of them joining the platform in the first place.
So yes, it's justified. If I were to threaten to kill someone here in the forum, and then get banned from the forum because of it, my freedom of speech wasn't violated. I simply violated the contract I have with Mangahelpers...(I'm assuming a death threat is a ban-able offense. It should be if it isn't) and whatever decision they choose is valid and sound.
What's with the use of quotations? You guys do this allll the time. As if you have some contention with the words used, and yet that's an accurate word... used accurately. Does contending everything without end somehow lend credence to your argument, even if it's nonsensical quotes as such? Yes, the MEDIA. Problem?
Only, they are REQUIRED to list side effects. Truth in advertising, medical advertising, etc. What you have here is "media" acting as an advertising arm of big pharma, pushing vaccines which absolutely enrich pharma companies, and in the absence of discussions about side-effects and adverse reactions.
Imagine Fox News giving blanket medical advice (because that's exactly what is happening) to all their viewers saying they should all go and get on XYZ heart medication, because it's "safe and effective," full stop.
THAT is what is actually irresponsible, and that is exactly what is playing out.
Hmmm, you make a good point - people should just consult their doctors as opposed to getting blanket medical advice from "media" pundits. Why is THAT not your argument? Oh, we know why.
"Media" has qualifications to give blanket, unilateral, one-size-fits-all medical advice to its viewers (replete without legal risk of doing so)? Which just so happens to be the bidding of their pharmacological advertisers? Do tell!
Wait, what? So doing actual journalism is bad, but shilling for a huge multinational corporation (something you guys will not shut the fuck up about being evil... yet you repeat corporate talking points for the media industry, pharma, big tech, etc LOLOL) falls under 'qualifications'?
Well, yes, if you think the media (sorry, "media") should be an arm/subsidiary of the bastardization between big corporations and government (it is), then, yes, this is pure brilliance. Imagine arguing *for* such a monstrosity.
Shit like this is why CNN viewers dolphin applause when they say the CEO of Pfizer is the person of the year lolol.
'Useful idiots' - not being a term I coined, but being truer and true every day.
Imagine getting excited for ANYTHING this guy, who can barely stand, has to say, particularly when it's beyond obviously prepared for him. Only, because you carry water for the left and every single talking point in their corporate quiver, this gives you a political boner. Did you have your big red nose and big red shoes on when you posted this?
Oh, no! J6 (which affects me, you, and everyone else in zero ways at all) is out to get us all! Noooooooo *clutches pearls* *faints on fainting chair*
Absolutely pathetic. Lefties (Dims or otherwise, you can't really tell the difference going on the complaints lodged) are full-on drama queens.
To me the issue is that a discussion about the first amendment and it applying to private entities is extremely stupid. It's nonsense. How it goes nowadays is pretty much this:
Some asshole: TwItTeR iS vIoLaTiNg ThE fIrSt AmEnDmEnT!
Some other asshole: That's not how that works.
Some asshole: CoMMuNiSt!
It'd be different if the discussion was something like "Wait, should it be legal for privately owned businesses to ban people from using their products" or some variation of that but at the level the people railing against social media companies argue this it's impossible to have anything even resembling a coherent conversation. Because to even get to a coherent conversation about this you have to first get them to understand the sheer nonsense they are coming from.
Tell me more about how little you understand about the public utility argument.
And, when you go to look it up, you'll inadvertently argue big tech talking points for them (good little consumer!) against anti-monopoly laws or any other restrictions.
Then go and cheer on censorship in any format since the left is pro free speech and all. (yeah, yeah, you're not a lefty, lol, sure)
Imagine bitching about the non-event January 6th (OMG, I scared myself just typing it! soooo scary!) a year later, let alone at all. It was Almaty-level event!
My side? Caring about cops is immaterial here. What is relevant is you classifying it as a non-event when that's the opposite of what it was.
If you were interested in putting anyone who's violent behind bars regardless of political views, you wouldn't classify what happened that day as a "non-event". Just imagining the mental gymnastics required to make that statement is giving me whiplash. But hey, at least you haven't blamed it on Antifa or called it a PsyOp yet, so kudos I guess.
So something has to change your life in a direct way in order for it to be considered substantial in any sense? I guess that level of navel-gazing is on brand, not sure why I should be surprised.
These aren't two mutually-exclusive ideologies, thanks. It was a non-event, in the grand scheme of things, certainly not worth all the bitching and moaning a year later, but you guys wish to squeeze squeeze squeeze alllll you think you can get from it.
Meanwhile, I think we should throw appropriate charges at the key figures and move on with our lives.
I *also* happen to think we should have done the same to the BLM losers during the 'summer of love'. Since you brought it up (keep track, I didn't).
But if you'd like to talk proportionality (you probably don't), J6 was a relative non-event if you want to use ANY metric - damages, loss of lives, injuries to protesters, injuries to cops, etc etc.
Throw the scum in jail - from any of these events - for what they are responsible for (again, appropriate charges) and be done with it.
That's rich coming from the left. I mean, if you attempt to force my views into such a narrow false-dichotomy against my will, then you can create whatever scenario you'd like to tilt your windmills to.
I understand - accountability is a foreign concept for the left so the knee-jerk reaction is to look for examples of someone shirking it under every rock.
So something has to change your life in a direct way in order for it to be considered substantial in any sense? I guess that level of navel-gazing is on brand, not sure why I should be surprised.
YES. When only those directly responsible/present are affected, it's not a real substantial story that should have legs one year later. Hell, Waukasha parade didn't even make the news here, and was quickly buried, and that had way more mayhem. But, the optics are all wrong, and your side has politicized EVERYTHING.
As opposed to, say, the Kyle R case which has self-defense ramifications and reverb that CAN affect me.
Or burnt-out, shit-hole, Dem-controlled cities that cannot be lived in or traveled through anymore. Which has affected my business in various ways.
Or medical mandates which obviously affect me and everyone in the country.
Or the cost of fuel.
Or or or...
THOSE are substantial stories. J6 is not.
Tell me, how has J6 personally affected your life? If it weren't for your media overlords, it wouldn't even be a story you knew to complain about.
ATLANTA, GA—In light of recent shake-ups at the network, comedian Brian Stelter is working hard to boost his ratings at CNN in an attempt to capitalize on the network’s talent vacuum before Chris Wallace’s show begins airing. To accomplish this, he got a series of random tattoos and began openly...
babylonbee.com
They gotta keep the J6 boogeyman story going though - it's great for ratings. Same as potato Joe leveraging events for political theater and to stir up his base.
BRONX, NY—United States Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez visited Woodlawn Cemetery this morning to grieve in quiet dignity at her own grave on the 1-year anniversary of her death on January 6. She was seen openly weeping and tearing her clothes by the photo crew she brought with her.
babylonbee.com
This one couldn't be any more apropos - it's every lefty on J6 ever. The horror!
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Here's an ACTUAL intelligent opinion about J6.
Presented by a left-leaning, progressive, atheistic, gay, Jewish (anti-Zionist), married to a POC, vegan, critical of Trump, and running a business that employs homeless in a slum to take care of stray dogs. Unfortunately, he's white (some will say Jews aren't caucasians....), cis, and isn't disabled. Otherwise, he checks every single box, so I think he's qualified for you to read his words. Oh, and this is the Pulitzer-winning journo that broke the Snowden story. Although his intersectionalism already qualified him, obviously.
As Kamala Harris compares 1/6 to 9/11 and Nancy Pelosi introduces the cast of Hamilton to sing about democracy, today's inanity should not obscure its dangers.
greenwald.substack.com
The Histrionics and Melodrama Around 1/6 Are Laughable, but They Serve Several Key Purposes As Kamala Harris compares 1/6 to 9/11 and Nancy Pelosi introduces the cast of Hamilton to sing about democracy, today's inanity should not obscure its dangers.
The number of people killed by pro-Trump supporters at the January 6 Capitol riot is equal to the number of pro-Trump supporters who brandished guns or knives inside the Capitol. That is the same number as the total of Americans who — after a full year of a Democrat-led DOJ conducting what is heralded as “the most expansive federal law enforcement investigation in US history” — have been charged with inciting insurrection, sedition, treason or conspiracy to overthrow the government as a result of that riot one year ago. Coincidentally, it is the same number as Americans who ended up being criminally charged by the Mueller probe of conspiring with Russia over the 2016 election, and the number of wounds — grave or light — which AOC, who finally emerged at night to assure an on-edge nation that she was “okay" while waiting in an office building away from the riot at the rotunda, sustained on that solemn day.
That number is zero. But just as these rather crucial facts do not prevent the dominant wing of the U.S. corporate media and Democratic Party leaders from continuing to insist that Donald Trump's 2016 election victory was illegitimate due to his collusion with the Kremlin, it also does not prevent January 6 from being widely described in those same circles as an Insurrection, an attempted coup, an event as traumatizing as Pearl Harbor (2,403 dead) or the 9/11 attack (2,977 dead), and as the gravest attack on American democracy since the mid-19th Century Civil War (750,000 dead). The Huffington Post's White House reporter S.V. Date said that it was wrong to compare 1/6 to 9/11, because the former — the three-hour riot at the Capitol — was “1,000 percent worse.”
Indeed, when it comes to melodrama, histrionics, and exploitation of fear levels from the 1/6 riot, there has never been any apparent limit. And today — the one-year anniversary of that three-hour riot — there is no apparent end in sight. Too many political and media elites are far too vested in this maximalist narrative for them to relinquish it voluntarily.
The orgy of psychodrama today was so much worse and more pathetic than I expected — and I expected it to be extremely bad and pathetic. “House Democrats [waited] their turn on the House floor to talk to Dick Cheney as a beacon for American democracy,” reported CNN's Edward-Isaac Dovere; “One by one, Democrats are coming over to introduce themselves to former VP Dick Cheney and shake his hand,” added ABC News’ Ben Siegel. Nancy Pelosi gravely introduced Lin-Manuel Miranda and the cast of Hamilton to sermonize and sing about the importance of American democracy. The Huffington Post's senior politics reporter Igor Bobic unironically expressed gratitude for “the four legged emotional support professionals roaming the Capitol this week, helping officers, staffers, and reporters alike” — meaning therapy dogs. Yesterday, CNN's Kaise Hunt announced: "Tomorrow is going to be a tough one for those of us who were there or had loved ones in the building. Thinking of all of you and finding strength knowing I’m not alone in this." Unsurprisingly but still repellently: Kamala Harris today compared 1/6 to 9/11.
That the January 6 riot was some sort of serious attempted insurrection or "coup” was laughable from the start, and has become even more preposterous with the passage of time and the emergence of more facts. The United States is the most armed, militarized and powerful regime in the history of humanity. The idea that a thousand or so Trump supporters, largely composed of Gen X and Boomers, who had been locked in their homes during a pandemic — three of whom were so physically infirm that they dropped dead from the stress — posed anything approaching a serious threat to “overthrow” the federal government of the United States of America is such a self-evidently ludicrous assertion that any healthy political culture would instantly expel someone suggesting it with a straight face.
Putting the events of January 6 into their proper perspective is not to dismiss the fact that it was a lamentable event — any more than opposing the exploitation of 9/11 and exaggeration of the domestic threat of Muslim extremism, which I spent a full decade doing, meant that one was denying the heinousness of that attack. The day after the 1/6 riot, I wrote in this space that “the introduction of physical force into political protest is always lamentable, usually dangerous, and, except in the rarest of circumstances that are plainly inapplicable here, unjustifiable.” I still believe that to be the case. There was nothing virtuous about the 1/6 riot.
But it is typically the case that fear-mongering and deliberate exaggeration of threats has an element of truth to them. Al Qaeda and ISIS really did want to carry out mass-casualty events on U.S. soil. COVID is a fatal virus that can kill people and has done so around the world. There are right-wing extremists in the U.S. bent on using violence to advance their political agenda, just as there are left-wing extremists and anarchist insurrectionary movements and many other types eager to do the same (more destruction was caused by the latter than the former over the last two years, to say nothing of the dozens of journalists physically assaulted by individuals participating in Antifa protests).
Far too many centers of political and economic power benefit from an exaggerated and even false narrative about January 6 to expect it ever to end.
The Democratic Party, eager to cling to their majoritarian control of the White House and both houses of Congress, knows it has no political program that is appealing and thus hopes that this concocted drama will help them win — just as they foolishly believed about Russiagate. With the threat of Al Qaeda and ISIS faded if not gone, and the attempt to scare Americans over Putin a failure, the U.S. security state, always in need of a scary enemy, has settled on the claim that right-wing “domestic extremists" are the greatest threat to U.S national security; though they claimed this before 1/6, casting 1/6 as an insurrection allows them to classify an entire domestic political movement as an insurrectionary criminal group and thus justify greater spying powers and budgetary authorities.
CNN proudly announced that the most-watched day in the history of their network was 1/6. The dirty little secret of the liberal wing of the corporate media is that nobody benefited more from the Trump campaign, his presidency and its aftermath than they, and they are desperate to rejuvenate it and re-discover that glory. Meanwhile, coddled journalists who have never broken meaningful stories have finally found a way to claim that they stared down dangerous and risky situations — as if they spent years in the middle of an active war zone or were persecuted and prosecuted by a corrupt and authoritarian state for their intrepid reporting — and have converted Brian Stelter's CNN show into a virtual therapists's couch where they all get to go and talk about how they are still coping with the deep trauma of spending a few hours in the Capitol last year.
The pettiness and absurdity of this Democrat/media narrative, laughable as it often is, does not mean it is free of danger. Asserting that the U.S. suffered an attempted coup by a still-vibrant armed faction of insurrectionists is a self-evidently inflammatory claim. It has been used to allocate billions more to the Capitol Police and to radically expand their powers; justify the increased domestic use of FBI tactics including monitoring and infiltration; and agitate for the mass imprisonment of political adversaries, including elected members of Congress. Hapless defendants who are not even accused of using violence have been held in harsh solitary confinement for close to a year, then sentenced to years in prison — while self-styled criminal justice reform advocates say nothing or, even worse, cheer. If one genuinely believes that the U.S. came close to a violent overthrow of American democracy and still faces the risk of an insurrection, then it is rational to sanction radical acts by the U.S. security state that, in more peaceful and normal times, would be unthinkable.
Where is this “insurrection"? What happened to it? Where did it go? The January 6 protest barely lasted four hours until it was easily subdued. Copying the Bush/Cheney model of keeping fear levels high by constantly issuing vague warnings of looming violence and doom, the Department of Homeland Security issued at least six separate "heightened threat” warnings last year, not a single one of which materialized. There were no violent protests in Washington, D.C. or in state capitols on Inauguration Day; no violent protests materialized the week after Biden's inauguration; no violent protest erupted once COVID lockdowns were eased due to social media provocations; none happened on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attack; there was no right-wing violence perpetrated in connection with the commemoration of the 100th year anniversary of the Tulsa massacre. Each time such a warning was issued, cable outlets and liberal newspapers breathlessly reported them, ensuring fear levels remained high.
What is really going on here is as tawdry as it is obvious. Democrats have no governing program on which they can run and win. The complete collapse of the party was temporarily obscured by the once-in-a-generation talent in Barack Obama and the very narrow win in 2020 of a banal, empty septuagenarian, thanks to the incumbent-killing double crisis of a devastating pandemic and economic shutdown. But the edifice of this party collapsed under Obama — “the Whole Democratic Party is Now a Smoking Pile of Rubble,” warned supreme Democratic partisan Matt Yglesias at Vox in 2016 — and it is collapsing once again under Biden. Its only ideologies — neoliberalism, corporatism, militarism — are widely despised failures, but they are imprisoned by their donor base from offering anything else.
A party that does not believe it can win politically often tries to criminalize its adversaries. That is what Democrats did during the Trump years: focused not on defeating his legislative agenda but obsessing on the fantasy that FBI Superman Robert Mueller was going to come and round up Trump and his family members and associates and haul them off to prison. The Democrats’ beloved former CIA Director, NBC News star John Brennan, all but promised that was going to happen two weeks before Robert Mueller closed his investigation by announcing he found no evidence to establish the core crime of conspiring with Russia.
When that four-year-long prison fantasy collapsed, they quickly switched to a new one: Merrick Garland was going to come and round up Trump and his allies in Congress like Josh Hawley and Matt Gaetz and haul them off to prison as traitors and seditionists. After a full year of producing nothing but banal trespassing and assault charges — no sexy allegations of insurrection or sedition let alone the arrest of Trump and his relatives — Democrats, who spent four years pretending to revere an apolitical DOJ, are now intensifying their political pressure on Garland to deliver. In a press conference on Wednesday, the beleaguered Attorney General addressed those political attacks directly and urged Democrats to have patience, implying that people not present at the Capitol on 1/6 could and would be criminally charged. Fantasies of Trump in handcuffs once again danced in the heads of Adam Schiff, Laurence Tribe, and Eric Swalwell.
As demonstrated by the glee universally expressed by Democrats over Twitter's banning this week of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (D-GA), it is not an exaggeration to say the top priority for Democrats is to turn their opponents into criminals who are silenced, censored, rounded up by prosecutors and then imprisoned. That is why they are so content to see Julian Assange (an actually persecuted and traumatized journalist) rotting in prison: to them, his real crime is that he helped elect Donald Trump and, for that, he deserves prison. That is why this Insurrection narrative surrounding 1/6 is so vital to Democrats: it ensures that they are not facing a different ideological camp but rather a band of criminals and domestic terrorists who deserve not a defeat at the ballot box but censorship by a union of state and corporate power, followed by a prison cell.
Democrats’ media allies — the axis of the The New York Times, NBC News, CNN, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and the undifferentiated and rapidly disappearing mass of Brooklyn-based digital outlets (HuffPostGizmodoBuzzFeedDailyBeastIntercept MotherJonesViceVultureVox, who churn out the same content with just a few more curse words and radical poses) — now speak only to and for one another when they are not failing completely. Keeping Americans hooked on fear — of Putin's takeover of the U.S., of COVID, of an imminent fascist coup — is their only hope for relevance, profit, and purpose. They can shower themselves with as many Pulitzers as they want for fake Russiagate stories and spend all day applauding one another on social media, but they know they are widely despised and distrusted. Posturing as the bulwark against Fascism and Defenders of Democracy — which in turn depends on the existence of an insurrectionary movement — is their only hope for finding meaning. But cowards and propagandists who weep and engage in public therapy when confronting the slightest discomfort do not make for convincing super heroes. Nobody is inspired, but merely irritated, by the Princess whining about the pea buried under her seventeenth mattress.
As usual, the prime beneficiaries of all of this, and the most dangerous one, is the U.S. security state. They need, above all else, an existential threat to justify their endless growth and unchecked power. All of the old villains are largely vanquished and stale (Communism, Al Qaeda, ISIS), while the proposed stand-ins never really panned out (Americans never woke up thinking about Putin). That is when they began claiming that the most serious threat was a domestic one: fellow American citizens who harbor “extremist” ideologies. Though they claim that it is right-wing extremists who pose the greatest threat — white supremacist extremists to be exact — the lists they disseminate of who falls under this rubric encompasses essentially anyone — left, right or in between — who sees the world differently than Wolf Blitzer, Joe Scarborough and Chris Hayes see it: meaning dissidents, those who distrust the decrees of authority and wish to subvert rather than submit to establishment power. Claiming that the U.S. is facing an Insurrection and barely survived a "coup” is a script that could not be better suited to their interests.
There are genuine unresolved questions surrounding the 1/6 riot that are genuinely important and merit scrutiny. It is proven that the FBI had at least two informants on the ground with whom it was communicating as the protest unfolded, but the full extent of the FBI's role — whether it replicated what it repeatedly did during the first War on Terror and then again in engineering the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer — remains unknown. That is because the only bodies capable of discovering the answers — the DOJ and the Congressional 1/6 Committee — have no interest in finding out. The contrary is true: they have a strong interest in suppressing those facts because it undermines rather than advances their fear narrative.
Fear is a powerful human drive — arguably the most powerful one. Humans need it to survive; without it, they would have died off thousands of years ago. It is embedded in our psyches. And any demagogue worth their salt knows how to stimulate it and manipulate it. Fear — as we have seen throughout the last two years of the COVID pandemic — breeds acquiescence, subservience and conformity. It fosters not just a willingness, but an eagerness to submit to any authority promising to keep you safe from the threat and to banish and silence anyone dissenting from their decrees, on the ground that dissent is not just wrong but dangerous.
What happened on January 6 was ugly and disturbing. But it was nowhere near an insurrection, a coup, or anything threatening in a fundamental or sustained way. That core truth — that it was a protest that turned into a three-hour riot killing nobody except four of the protesters — destroys its value. Only the false narrative that has been constructed over the last year and consecrated by today's inane festivities can convert this banal episode into some world-historic event that at once makes heroes out of those who were there to oppose it and justifies everything and anything done in the name of preventing its repetition.
It's fine, because they start out with the same right to share their voice on that platform as everyone else, provided they don't violate terms of service (TOS). Once they violate TOS, they have forfeited their right to use that platform. And they have to accept this before joining the platform, because those are the conditions of them joining the platform in the first place.
So yes, it's justified. If I were to threaten to kill someone here in the forum, and then get banned from the forum because of it, my freedom of speech wasn't violated. I simply violated the contract I have with Mangahelpers...(I'm assuming a death threat is a ban-able offense. It should be if it isn't) and whatever decision they choose is valid and sound.
Gotta reiterate that Trump, MTG, and other republicans kept violating terms of service over and over and got so many chances that most people wouldn't. There really is no possible way to defend them, not without being an idiot.
Because the right are full of brainwashed idiots who agree with Tucker Carlson and Fox News no matter how much lies they spread and how full of shit they are. Plus, he's also pro-Trump, which helps his ratings.
Those to the left of center aren't brainwashed and have differing opinions, so many won't trust CNN.
Also, today's also the anniversary of Ashli Babbitt's death, with the right wingers showing their hypocrisy in defending a treasonous rioter while justifying unarmed Black people being murdered. Her death is on her hands, and I've read that she wasn't a good person anyway.
There's no martyr on the right. None on the left either if we're talking about Black people who were murdered, as none of them wanted to be martyrs. They deserved to live.
Can't say the same about a seditionist who took part in an insurrection.
What's with the use of quotations? You guys do this allll the time. As if you have some contention with the words used, and yet that's an accurate word... used accurately. Does contending everything without end somehow lend credence to your argument, even if it's nonsensical quotes as such? Yes, the MEDIA. Problem?
Only, they are REQUIRED to list side effects. Truth in advertising, medical advertising, etc. What you have here is "media" acting as an advertising arm of big pharma, pushing vaccines which absolutely enrich pharma companies, and in the absence of discussions about side-effects and adverse reactions.
Imagine Fox News giving blanket medical advice (because that's exactly what is happening) to all their viewers saying they should all go and get on XYZ heart medication, because it's "safe and effective," full stop.
THAT is what is actually irresponsible, and that is exactly what is playing out.
Hmmm, you make a good point - people should just consult their doctors as opposed to getting blanket medical advice from "media" pundits. Why is THAT not your argument? Oh, we know why.
Thanks for making my point for me?
LOL, contradictory line of thought with your previous sentence. Typical.
"Media" has qualifications to give blanket, unilateral, one-size-fits-all medical advice to its viewers (replete without legal risk of doing so)? Which just so happens to be the bidding of their pharmacological advertisers? Do tell!
Wait, what? So doing actual journalism is bad, but shilling for a huge multinational corporation (something you guys will not shut the fuck up about being evil... yet you repeat corporate talking points for the media industry, pharma, big tech, etc LOLOL) falls under 'qualifications'?
Well, yes, if you think the media (sorry, "media") should be an arm/subsidiary of the bastardization between big corporations and government (it is), then, yes, this is pure brilliance. Imagine arguing *for* such a monstrosity.
Shit like this is why CNN viewers dolphin applause when they say the CEO of Pfizer is the person of the year lolol.
'Useful idiots' - not being a term I coined, but being truer and true every day.
Imagine getting excited for ANYTHING this guy, who can barely stand, has to say, particularly when it's beyond obviously prepared for him. Only, because you carry water for the left and every single talking point in their corporate quiver, this gives you a political boner. Did you have your big red nose and big red shoes on when you posted this?
Oh, no! J6 (which affects me, you, and everyone else in zero ways at all) is out to get us all! Noooooooo *clutches pearls* *faints on fainting chair*
Absolutely pathetic. Lefties (Dims or otherwise, you can't really tell the difference going on the complaints lodged) are full-on drama queens.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Tell me more about how little you understand about the public utility argument.
And, when you go to look it up, you'll inadvertently argue big tech talking points for them (good little consumer!) against anti-monopoly laws or any other restrictions.
Then go and cheer on censorship in any format since the left is pro free speech and all. (yeah, yeah, you're not a lefty, lol, sure)
--- Double Post Merged, ---
As opposed to cheering for the deaths of your political rivals (as a 'joke'), in which case you get a gold star apparently.
But... what's going on here isn't actual advertising. There are actual doctors, experts and medical institutions that make the point that people should take the vaccine. This isn't a situation where just reporters are arbitrarily saying to take something without any sort of justification. Marketing medicines should be absurdly illegal just in general but reporting on what folk with actual expertise are saying people should do during a pandemic is entirely reasonable. Obviously a reporter going "studies have concluded the vaccine is safe and effective and the vast majority of medical professionals recommend taking it" is drastically different from a reporter going "my medical advise to you is... ".
As for the bit about consulting doctors... but that is my arguments. And that isn't contradictory with what I wrote earlier.
How is my point that reporters should be out looking for foul play in studies and approval processes (you can also throw conflicts of interest there) shilling for corporations? That makes no sense. I am all for going for blood here but it has to be in a way that makes sense.
I mean, if you want to remain willfully ignorant about what the constitution can or cannot do that's on you. The first amendment in the vast majority of cases not applying to private entities is a fact. Do you even have anything resembling an argument to suggest otherwise?
Problem is liberals painting Black victims of police violence as martyrs or people who sacrificed their lives when that's not true at all. Maybe I'm not using "martyr" correctly, but none of them wanted to die nor were they ready to die.
How is it not reasonable? If a member breaks a rule on a forum over and over and incites flame wars, wouldn't you want to ban them? Social media platforms still have rules that they let users know when they sign up, so if anything it should be on the users for not abiding by them....
Nah, I am saying it wouldn't be reasonable for a law such as that to exist. But a law saying this is at least technically feasible. The constitution is the framework of how the government and laws work, not specific individuals... Imagine going to the supreme court every time a mod here deletes a needlessly rude posts...
babylonbee.com
greenwald.substack.com