The second-highest-rated comment "Facebook told two women their pro-Trump videos were ‘unsafe’" at WaPo. The 2 women are Diamond and Silk.
ADDED: From Zuckerberg's testimony yesterday (via The Federalist, via Instapundit)(boldface added):
Ted Cruz: There are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship. There have been numerous instances with Facebook. In May of 2016, Gizmodo reported Facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news — including stories about CPAC, about Mitt Romney, about Glenn Beck. In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chik-fil-A appreciation page, blocked posts of a Fox News reporter, blocked over two dozen Catholic pages and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page with 1.2 million Facebook followers after determining their content and brand were ‘unsafe to the community. To a great many Americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Do you agree with that assessment?Excellent answer by the well-prepped Zuckerberg. I am reading this looking for how Ted Cruz "savages" Zuckerberg. That's the word at The Federalist. Zuckerberg is saying, essentially, that the culture of Silicon Valley is so pervasively left-wing that well-meaning human beings applying what are supposed to be neutral standards may produce bias results. Zuckerberg acknowledges the problem of implicit bias and says he wants to deal with it.
Zuckerberg: I understand where that concern is coming from, because Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place. This is actually a concern that I have in that I — and I try to root out in the company, is making sure we don’t have any bias in the work we do and I think it is a fair concern that people would wonder about....
Notice what he doesn't say: We're a private company and we have a right to favor the left over the right. That's the idea in the WaPo comment in the original post.
So far, no "savaging." The excerpt from The Federalist continues:
Cruz: Are you aware of any ad or page that’s been taken down from Planned Parenthood?Where's the savaging?! Zuckerberg committed to avoiding political bias on Facebook. He didn't give Cruz that fight. Cruz was ready to show that the bias was happening, and Zuckerberg came prepared to defuse that: It can happen inadvertently because the political culture of Silicon Valley is so strong, but he's not defending that — he's working on it. I'm not saying I trust Zuckerberg to do that or even that he sincerely intends to do that. I'm only saying that Cruz gave Zuckerberg nothing he wasn't prepared to deflect.
Zuckerberg: Senator, I’m not, but let me just …
Cruz: How about MoveOn.org? Or any Democratic candidate from office?
Zuckerberg: I’m not specifically aware. I’m not sure.
Cruz: In your testimony you say you have 15,000 to 20,000 people working on security and content review. Do you know the political orientation of those 15,000 to 20,000 people engaged in content review?
Zuckerberg: No, we do not generally ask people about their political orientation when they’re joining the company.
Cruz: Do you feel it’s your responsibility to assess users, whether they are good and positive connections or ones that those 15,000 to 20,000 people deem unacceptable or deplorable?
Zuckerberg: I think there are a number of things we all agree are clearly bad. Foreign interference in elections. Terrorism. Self-harm.
Cruz: I’m talking censorship.
Zuckerberg: You would probably agree that we should remove terrorist propaganda from the service. We want to get that done and we’re proud of how well we do with that. What I can say, and I do want to get this in — I’m very committed to making sure that Facebook is a platform for all ideas.
पोस्ट्स
२१२ टिप्पण्या:
212 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The tolerance and diversity crowd.
Totalitarians are good at holding two opposite ideas in their heads at the same time.
I would like to suggest that if you truly believe that being a minority means you cannot support Trump, then there is something wrong with you. Democrats have the black young men of the inner city Midnight Basketball. Trump gave them jobs.
Doesn't this make you feel great about about people? All of it. It's life affirming is what it is.
Get back on the plantation!!
Forbes Nov 19 2016 - "Trump captured 8 percent of the black vote, 29 percent of the Latino vote, and 29 percent of the Asian vote."
There is something wrong with many minorities according to bigoted second ranked commentator.
But minorities are never wrong!
I would invite whoever made that ignorant comment to go argue it with Diamond and Silk. Good luck.
It's who whom all the way down.
Useful phrase.
Good tag.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Maybe the 8% of minorities are the bell-curve smart ones.
As the Constitution says, you shall have no free speech if there is something wrong with you.
Of course, not beholden to quaint once-liberal principles, FB already discriminates with impunity.
Sebastian said...
As the Constitution says, you shall have no free speech if there is something wrong with you.
The 1st Amendment only says that the government may not restrict free speech. Facebook's practices violate the general concept of free speech. They do not violate the Constitution.
“The 1st Amendment only says that the government may not restrict free speech. Facebook's practices violate the general concept of free speech. They do not violate the Constitution.”
You’ll be surprised to learn rights don’t come from the Constitution.
There are also anti-discrimination laws. If you could show that these women were banned for supporting Trump while black, but that whites who posted similar content were not banned, then Facebook would likely be guilty of racial discrimination.
I'm not sure how it works if the discrimination is second-hand. For example, if Facebook bans content only after it receives a complaint, and it only gets complaints based on the race of the speaker, is Facebook guilty of discrimination?
The underlying truth is the Democratic Party can’t survive today with less than 90% of the black vote.
If any more minorities start thinking it might be OK to vote for Trump it’s not going to be a competitive election.
Cruz didn't land any punches.
Zuckerberg is a liar.
He was well-prepped, which is smart.
If they go by complaints, only right-wing stuff will be banned. The right tolerates speech on the left, the left doesn't tolerate speech on the right.
The 1st Amendment only says that the government may not restrict free speech.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure several Senators yesterday were teetering on writing laws telling Facebook they need to restrict *hate* speech.
Kevin said...
You’ll be surprised to learn rights don’t come from the Constitution.
No, I will not. As was clear from my comment, I was responding to someone commenting about what the Constitution says. They said something wrong. On the Internet. Therefore I was obligated to correct them.
It would improve the collective leftie credibility if one talking point were selected instead. Either Facebook doesn't discriminate or it does. If you argue both simultaneously there is something wrong with you.
It was interesting yesterday to watch the Republicans be the party of free speech, and Democrats be the party of limiting free speech.
Who does Facebook- and Silicon Valley-- think its friends are?
"I'm only saying that Cruz gave Zuckerberg nothing he wasn't prepared to deflect."
And there you have in a nutshell why Cruz (the smartest of the bunch) was not the Republican nominee or President. How would Zuck prepare for a debate with Trump, who could sum him up and take him down with a single nickname?
Looks like conservatives will be forced into the social media ghetto. Which was the plan all along by those 15,000.
Last week, there was a big push on social media for Amazon and YouTube to purge the NRA Channel because the NRA is a hate organization that kills people. I would have loved for one of the Senators to ask if the NRA would be blocked from Facebook under such pressure.
People talk about 4chan being racist sometimes, and it is, people talk shit then other people talk shit about the people talking shit, which is pretty much America, I think.
But then you read the shit on smart-people websites where people are supposed to be smarter than that, and it's even more racist I think, because they just don't come out and say it, they couch it in, like, Woke shit and make it sound smart.
Like, there may be a picture of a white chick spreading her ass cheeks and showing her asshole, and a dude might comment that he's black but he sure loves them white women showing their assholes. And then people will try to jump his shit, saying he shouldn't be looking at the white chicks that way, then their shit gets jumped because black dudes can look at any nude chick's asshole that they want, it's in the Constitution now.
But on the smart websites people say that black people can only like certain things, or then, like, they're not black anymore, they're just assholes and wrong. And that's fucked up. When you're so not racist that you end up being racist again I guess you don't even see it coming.
In Thunderdome it don't matter if you're white or black, or like, the other colors, because in Thunderdome you just bring your best shit and get it on. But people all act like Thunderdome is a bad thing, when Thunderdome is happening all around us, people, you don't even see it until someone is jumping your shit and fucking up your YouTube and Twitter and Facebook and shit. Just because they're, like, Zuckerberg and rich doesn't mean you can't go Thunderdome on their ass.
Because you might not have the biggest cock, but it'll seem pretty big to them when you're shoving it up their ass.
I post my shit here.
Fb fault was leaving a paper trail.
Shadowbanning is much more effective.
Ted Cruz has been shadowbanned.
Dorsey just makes no paper trail suggestions to the safety team, who then ban people.
Diamond and and have been quietly reinstated.
Zuckerdork, a statesman in the making. What gravitas! What leadership! I'd follow him into battle anytime, anywhere. I haven't seen such spellbinding answers since I don't know when. (sarc alert))
I actually prefer the answer, "We're a private company, and we have a right to favor the left over the right." I really don't want to trust my rights to the good will of Facebook and the wisdom of Mark Zuckerberg. The real problem is the monopolistic positions of Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple.
Duke Power in defense of IQ tests in Griggs
"I understand where that concern is coming from, because Duke Power and the electric company are located in North Carolina, which is an extremely racist place. This is actually a concern that I have in that I — and I try to root out in the company, is making sure we don’t have any bias in the work we do and I think it is a fair concern that people would wonder about...."
Can somebody please explain to me how this equates to well-prepared and excellent answer?
>>They do not violate the Constitution
Small bakers MUST create content they disagree with. You can't tell them "Bake your own cake".
Facebook has every right to censor content. If you don't like it, start your own web site.
By the way, I so very much appreciate Althouse's rightful calling out the notion of what Zucekberg didn't say, vis-à-vis "We're a private company, and we have a right to favor the left over the right."
The only reason Cruz stuck out is because he was the only one that didn't look like an idiot trying to read idiotic questions their idiotic staff prepared for them.
"The 1st Amendment only says"
Hey, Ignorance, don't act like your alias. And there was a mental sarc tag somewhere.
Hey cool. If you label conservative thoughts and opinion as terror, boom - Zuckerberg has cover for censorship. Nifty how the left operate.
Who wants to be the Roger Ailes of Foxbook?
>>If you label conservative thoughts and opinion as terror
Our violence is free speech. Your free speech is violence.
Leftists have no problem telling two black females they are not allowed on the white progressive leftwing plantation.
I think there are a number of things we all agree are clearly bad. Foreign interference in elections
How much longer to we have to pretend this is a problem of a magnitude greater than spit in the ocean? I mean it perpetuates the dopamine feedback loop for some people, but at some point even that should dissipate, yes?
"I think there are a number of things we all agree are clearly bad. Foreign interference in elections. Terrorism. Self-harm." Make a list. A short list. Clear guidelines. Make it public.
Chuck said...
I really don't want to trust my rights to the good will of Facebook and the wisdom of Mark Zuckerberg.
True enough. On the other hand, I certainly don't want to trust my rights to the good will of Congressmen of either party, nor the President ( not just the current one, but any of them ), nor the left half of the Supreme Court.
Btw, I would not agree that "foreign interference in elections" should be on that short list.
Somebody.
Anybody.
Do me a solid and address how Duke Power giving the same answer in Griggs (1971) would be well-prepped and excellent answer.
Facebook should bar worried about being regulated by a government entity. That should be of concern to them and us. Not to mention the possibility that their offices could be raided by Feds like what happened to Cohen. Zuckerberg should be careful about being smug like Hillary that the fix was in to protect them.
Senator Cruz doesn’t ask the direct questions: “Why did Facebook block Diamond and Silk?” “Are you blocking people for reasons other than foreign interference in elections, terrorism, and self-harm?” “Since you track political leanings of your users, can your team provide stats on that for the Facebook community in the U.S. at large versus the people you have blocked?”
I wonder if Facebook would ban this guy?
I mean - He's black and he must be a terrorist because of all that threat to community and stuff.
#IamMrRobinson
Sebastian said...
Hey, Ignorance, don't act like your alias. And there was a mental sarc tag somewhere.
On this I must plead ignorance. Could you please explain? About what was I acting ignorant? To what was the mental sarc tag applied?
The march to ban free speech, enforce speech codes and censorship and round up and jail anyone who isn't a proper leftwing progressive racist is apace.
North Korean dictator and CNN look on with awe.
The only reason Cruz stuck out is because he was the only one that didn't look like an idiot trying to read idiotic questions their idiotic staff prepared for them.
True.
My favorite was the Senator who asked the question about storing 96 categories of data. It went roughly like this
Zuckerberg: "I'm not sure what you mean by 96 categories"
Her :" 96. Categories"
Zuckerberg: "Yeah....I don't know what you are referring to about categories"
Her: (looking at paper in front of her)"Categories. 96"
Zuck:
Her: "Do you store 96 categories of data?"
At least there was no Hank Johnson to ask what happens when the cloud gets full of storage...does it rain your data on other people's lawns?
I remember the sheer terror in the face and voice of a black singer who was planning to be part of Trump's inaugural celebration weekend. She was announcing her change of plans, and it was a strained, awkward announcement. I tried to imagine what she had been through, how "they" might have threatened and hated on her to be so haunted, and who "they" might have been.
God Bless Diamond and Silk for taking on the BlueCoup, may they have the fortitude to continue to express their convictions.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
To what was the mental sarc tag applied?
Okay, re-reading your comment, I understand what you mean by the sarc tag. I certainly did understand it as such when I replied to it. And my point still stands. This is not a constitutional issue, so bringing up the Constitution just muddies the waters.
It's shadowbanning that offends me most: how is that not fraud?
Carol Davidsen Democrats sucked out "the entire social network of the US"
Former Obama campaign director reveals Facebook knowingly let them mine users’ data.
Do Left leaning people have difficulty respecting or tolerating other viewpoints? Is that what he's suggesting?
Diamond and Silk-are those real names?
Sounds like Drag Queen names.
"I'm only saying that Cruz gave Zuckerberg nothing he wasn't prepared to deflect."
That's the problem/issue. Deflect the issue, not provide a remedy for it.
Basically Z said, "Tight Sneakers."
I think Cruz destroyed Zuck because Zuck was effectively forced to concede every single last point Cruz made. How does that count as "deflecting"? It was pretty much abject surrender on Zuck's part on every level. And it does matter that everyone knows that his claims to intend to do something about it are bullshit.
"This is actually a concern that I have in that I — and I try to root out in the company, is making sure we don’t have any bias in the work we do "
So, when is he going to fix the problem? It is not like it just started last week or last month. And it is still going on. He's the founder and the CEO. This should be one of his highest priorities. It does not appear the problem is getting fixed. Perhaps they might want to put some of those 15-20,000 jobs monitoring content in other parts of the country besides Silicon Valley? I spent quite a bit of my time traveling to and working with people in Silicon Valley during the last 15-20 years of my career. Some of the people there have no idea what the rest of the country is like. It's a gigantic bubble.
Probably time to declare it a public utility. Then I don't think Ma Bell would be allowed to deny service to the Simpsons just because Bart Simpson makes a lot of prank calls to Moe's Tavern.
Senator Foghorn: Mr. Zuckerberg, you are the CEO of the Company. The Boss! So if there are 'left wing policies' in Facebook, they can be removed with a phone call BY YOU. Mr. Zuckerberg, here is a telephone. I will cede you sufficient time to call the head of those 15,000 employees and tell them to reinstate Diamond and Silk's page and to stop the censorship of Conservatives. Because the price of public trust is to be Trustworthy. You failed in this but YOU, CEO Zuckerberg, can fix that problem with a phone call and a policy firing any employees who show such blatant political animus. So there is the phone Mr. Zuckerberg. What are you going to do?'
We women are also not permitted to be Trump supporters. After all, we only voted for him because our husbands told us to. Oh, wait! I'm a widow!
The fact that Diamond and Silk support Trump was not the sufficient cause of blocking them from Facebook. It is the fact that they are black that is the critical factor and the necessary cause of their eviction from Facebook. This is a clear act of racial discrimination. A group of smart lawyers should jump on this case pronto.
Robother keenly observes: How would Zuck prepare for a debate with Trump, who could sum him up and take him down with a single nickname?
Trump's unpredictability is one of his greatest assets.
Could someone point out to me anything Trump has done to harm minorities or gay people?
There's an easy way around that. Zuck could easily hire people from across the country and have them work from home. He can afford it.
"Do Left leaning people have difficulty respecting or tolerating other viewpoints?"
Yes, mostly. Which is funny as they scream for diversity.
The real problem is the monopolistic positions of Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple.
Odd that you failed to mention Twitter. You know Twitter--that place where most of the news you see on TV is generated?
Mockturtle, he trained you well.
Zuckerberg owns the policies of his company. It isn't Silicon Valley's company. It isn't Silicon Valley's policies. They are HIS policies and it is HIS company.
So they are letting him off the hook. HE is responsible for what happens there and he can fix it with that phone call.
A zillionaire with control of the world’s largest social media platform is essentially a fascist? Well, no shit. It’s what zillionaires with monopolies do. In fairness to Zuckerberg, his point about his staff was valid. He didn’t hire them because they were Lefties, they arrived that way. Hearts and minds is a frenetically proactive game and it’s one that conservatives, thinking that the obvious will always assert itself, can barely be bothered to play.
Browndog said...
"The real problem is the monopolistic positions of Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple."
Odd that you failed to mention Twitter. You know Twitter--that place where most of the news you see on TV is generated?
My bad. Fair point.
Although -- perhaps we can agree -- Twitter is such a mosh-pit of extremist, undisciplined and uncontrolled garbage, that it would hardly count as any sort of propaganda wing for anybody.
"Well-meaning"?
I don’t look at Twitchy because of the way it hysterically over hypes twitter exchanges among morons. “Savaged”? I don’t think so. The same thing for sidebar srories on every website —it’s all clickbait, chum for the chumps.
Zuckerberg is crazy to tank half his potential customers—but the question remains, why delegate your news consumption to the little David Hoggs of Silicon Valley? When I open Yahoo or aol I can’t stomach the news feed on their front pages.
Free minds, free markets, free people.
Titus said...
Diamond and Silk-are those real names?
Sounds like Drag Queen names.
We will learn their real names when Trump nominates them for cabinet positions and their confirmation hearings are broadcast live on a Very Special Breaking News Edition of Hannity.
Gahrie said...
Could someone point out to me anything Trump has done to harm minorities or gay people?
Certainly. He denied Hillary the Presidency.
Mockturtle, he trained you well.
He would most likely not have supported Trump. Trump personifies what he disliked most about Americans, crude behavior and goal-oriented pragmatism. We seldom agreed on politics other than both liking Reagan and he was still a British citizen when Reagan ran and couldn't vote.
"Do Left leaning people have difficulty respecting or tolerating other viewpoints?"
Have difficulty?! They are incapable of tolerating other viewpoints.
"Do Left leaning people have difficulty respecting or tolerating other viewpoints?"
Have difficulty?! They are incapable of tolerating other viewpoints.
Not all left leaning people, no.
But the loudest voices on Social Media and regular media and politics? Yes.
Although it isn't that they have difficulty tolerating other viewpoints. Its that other viewpoints are really just hate filled.
mockturtle said...
We women are also not permitted to be Trump supporters. After all, we only voted for him because our husbands told us to. Oh, wait! I'm a widow!
I didn't know you are a widow. I'm so sorry!!!
I completely agree with you. I also remember my Democrat Facebook Friends telling people that women should be ashamed to support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. We really aren't allowed to think for ourselves at all!
"Do Left leaning people have difficulty respecting or tolerating other viewpoints?"
“Have difficulty?! They are incapable of tolerating other viewpoints.”
Do Right leaning people have difficulty respecting or tolerating other viewpoints here? Yes indeed. They seem almost incapable.
“I completely agree with you. I also remember my Democrat Facebook Friends telling people that women should be ashamed to support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. We really aren't allowed to think for ourselves at all!”
I remember people here saying that women supporting a female candidate are only doing so because “it’s all about the vagina”.
People should just stop whining and unfriend Facebook. Problem solved.
It can happen inadvertently because the political culture of Silicon Valley is so strong, but he's not defending that — he's working on it.
You've got to be kidding. Inadvertently? Like all those "mistakes" by CNN and the NYT that just happen to all hurt Trump and benefit Democrats? As if Zuckerberg is limited to Silicon Valley liberals in hiring people to do the "monitoring" for Facebook? Absurd.
Should have Had Diamond and Silk there to go Thunderdome on his ass.
I haven't found a complete transcript but I agree that in the excerpted part Cruz didn't "savage" Zuckerberg. On the other hand, I disagree that Zuckerberg came out well in that exchange (saying that he is aware of the inherent bias problem but making no credible explanation of how he intends to fix it.)
Did anyone ask him what the grounds were for blocking Diamond and Silk? It seems obvious that this should be explained rather than allow this he said-they said to go on where Facebook is basically saying that the women are lying about the email they received and yet they haven't released any of the communications or offered a public explanation that makes any sense.
FB doesn’t owe you free speech. If you don’t like the way their free stuff works, don’t use it. It’s a business decision. I ran a large FB group and commenters used to bitch about things beIng “censored”, it was hard to explain, there are people who don’t know the earth is round.
@Inga, I also remember trying to explain to you that until liberal women support conservative female candidates they have no right to appeal to female solidarity when liberal female candidates are running for office.
Well, great. Not a single one of you thinks Duke Power making the same argument as Zuckerberg in Griggs v Duke Power (1971) would be accepted.
Some crafty attorney somewhere out there can beat Facebook like a pinata and see what sort of money falls out.
SteveR:
The problem you fail to recognize is the one Cruz was highlighting. Facebook may not owe you free speech but as soon as they start curating what people see they lose the safe harbor protections built into the law and can be sued for speech made on their platform by third parties.
FB doesn’t owe you free speech. If you don’t like the way their free stuff works, don’t use it. It’s a business decision. I ran a large FB group and commenters used to bitch about things beIng “censored”, it was hard to explain, there are people who don’t know the earth is round.
How very libertarian. And simplistic.
Here is the reality of today's situation: there is a defacto monopoly, by the left, on the modern methods of communication, of which social media is a big part. If the media silences dissent, as they are currently doing, then it's up to the powers that be to make sure that this is all on a fair playing field.
Example: when you call someone on the phone, and use politically incorrect, right-leaning language, does AT&T or Verizon or Sprint threaten to end your service? No. Because it isn't their damn business what you're saying.
Social media should be treated the same way.
It was a good answer in the sense that Zuck did not provide a nice 5 second sound bite of "I hates conservatives! I hates 'em!" However, once you peel away all the BS, he admitted that Facebook is biased against conservatives. The fact that he personally is unhappy with that or it may not be black letter company policy is irrelevant. He's just hoping in all the BS that you do not notice. Being that the average journalist is (a) on his side and (b) not particularly perceptive, it will probably work.
“ I also remember trying to explain to you that until liberal women support conservative female candidates they have no right to appeal to female solidarity when liberal female candidates are running for office.”
OK let me try to unpack your own comment for you. First of all liberal women support candidates that reflect their political view, no matter what the gender/ sex. Secondly, women who support female candidates are not doing so merely or maybe not at all to be in “solidarity” with the female candidates they happen to support. Thirdly, why in the world, would a LIBERAL woman support a CONSERVATIVE female candidate merely because she is a female? That one was truly dumb Mike.
And Big Mike, save your mansplanin’ for the men.
FB doesn’t owe you free speech. If you don’t like the way their free stuff works, don’t use it. It’s a business decision. I ran a large FB group and commenters used to bitch about things beIng “censored”, it was hard to explain, there are people who don’t know the earth is round.
FB also doesn't owe you privacy if you've chosen to share information about yourself.
FB also doesn't owe you an experience where you won't see untrue things other people have said.
FB doesn't owe you filtered information so you don't have to use your own critical thinking.
There is no way Inga knows which way Big Mike identifies today.
Inga, quit your cis-heteronormative-splaining.
Fun games when there aren't any rules.
CStanley,
One of their complaints has been the lack of correspondence when they asked about what what they and their FB folks were experiencing....until they finally got the civility bullshit response.
If you have Iheart app, you can pull up a discussion/interview on Pags(who has experienced shadowbanning) show yesterday.
Yay! I just heard a Congressman say something true: That Facebook helps, for very little money, small businesses. A business Facebook page is free. You can use it for your business website, with hours, location, services availble, even booking services and processing payments.
Free! How many Stella and Dot, Rodan and Fields, Lip Sense, and Plexus consultants do you have as friends on Facebook? You know what? It's empowering WOMEN. For free.
(the empowering part above is my comment. But why isn't that a thing?)
"It was high time. She wanted it."
The left go to great effort to suppress speech they do not like.
This isn't about the comments section of a blog. It's about the FACT that the left often make it clear they do not want diversity of thought or opinion, theirs is the correct opinion, and the rest of you are deplorable and you should be shunned, silenced and censored ... Officially by the state.
Ask Diamond and Silk.
@Inga, may I take it then that you strongly disavow Madeline Albright’s famous remark about a “special place in Hell” and you equally disavow Hillary Clinton’s assertion that women voted the way their husbands told them to?
Yes, the business side of FB is pretty powerful.
FWIW, D&S have been viewing the manipulation of their account as damaging "our brand".
I remember people here saying that women supporting a female candidate are only doing so because “it’s all about the vagina”.
No, not all women. However...
News Flash: When a woman (or a man for that matter) votes for a candidate because she is a woman then it is indeed, "all about the vagina."
You can't say, "I think we need a woman in that office" and then vote for the candidate with the penis.
Couldn't agree from you more. I watched the whole proceeding and did not feel that Zuckerberg was "savaged". I think it was the only justification, in the far right press, for them questioning him. This whole thing with the "Diamonds and Silk" think is just that, a thing that justifies some in the far right press to shout "bias" at Facebook and Zuckerberg. I actually thought he did a pretty good job yesterday.
Sometimes Ted Cruz's paranoia gets the better of him.
Vicki from Pasadena
For free.
Ha! You do not have a small business page on FB.
Free is the last thing they want it to be.
"Secondly, why do people think that 'free speech' entitles them to use free services such as twitter, FB, or YouTube however they like? It doesn't. You want free speech, go start your own website."
That's an interesting business model. We are a communications company that bars communication. What do you want for nothin'? Sign me up!
To be slightly more serious, there are two major and, dare I say, devastating flaws in the commenter's argument:
1. If Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are going to bar various speech for whatever reason, you would think they would make it plain what is and is not acceptable. They do not. Instead, we get shadow bans, and suspensions without explanation, and demonetizations about videos from three years ago that were just fine until now, and abusive complaint systems that are mobbed, and blatant double standards depending on political views. If Facebook wants to be for people with views to the left of Nancy Pelosi, the company has the right to do that, but I suspect it would reduce their user base massively. So instead we get this game where these sites claim to be open communication platforms except for a few limited categories which will never apply to you, you gladly accept their offer and make it a key part of your content service, and then once you offend a twenty-something in Silicon Valley they lower the boom on you.
2. Starting your own web site is certainly an option and one I would welcome. However, the startup costs are expensive, the current market leaders have near monopoly status, and said market leaders are giving away their product for "free." It's not a simple thing. It's roughly like saying if you cannot buy the car you want you should start your own car company.
Sometimes Ted Cruz's paranoia gets the better of him.
Sometimes Ted is the only one who will ask certain questions. You have to forgive some on the right for their overexcitement that an elite might even be publicly challenged.
Vicki, if was just D&S, you would be right.
"We're a private company, and we have a right to favor the left over the right."
We're a private company, and we have a business model and earnings forecasts which depend on us not seeming to favor the left over the right.
FiFY
@Inga, may I take it then that you strongly disavow Madeline Albright’s famous remark about a “special place in Hell”
Inga already had to disavow Steve Scalise's shooter. Let's give her a break until after the midterms.
A Congresswoman currently bringing up (to use against him) apologies Zuckerberg has made in the past.
Proof that apologizing doesn't pay?
walter:
Diamond and Silk using "our brand" is very interesting. They may be using that language to make a claim of business disparagement, which is a tort claim not arising out of the First Amendment.
“Inga, may I take it then that you strongly disavow Madeline Albright’s famous remark about a “special place in Hell” and you equally disavow Hillary Clinton’s assertion that women voted the way their husbands told them to?”
Yes, it annoyed the hell out of me. I do however have disdain for women who seem to hate other women just because they are women. I really don’t get that attitude. It’s like self hate. I’ve heard women here claim they hate working with other women and would rather work with men because women are such bitches. I’m like ”Whaaaaaat? That’s a bitchy attitude.” It’s complicated Big Mike. But I just tried to womansplain something to you, lol.
Walter, This seems to be Fox's cause celebre at this moment. I know there are others.
Kevin, If Ted were only asking the penetrating,probing questions i would admire him more. He does it all for the camera, like his "fearless leader" (a Boris Badinof reference). It's all for the camera, all for the "public". makes me gag.
Vicki from Pasadena
Basically Zucky said because they have broad responsibility, they/he needs to excercise broader control..to keep interactions "positive".
For free.
Ha! You do not have a small business page on FB.
That is something you absolutely don't know to be true.
They might not want it to be free (buy ads on our platform!!) but it undoubtedly is.
The one day I decide to be serious!
Pfft!
They might not want it to be free (buy ads on our platform!!) but it undoubtedly is.
Have we not just spent the last week explaining to everyone that FB is not "free" to anyone?
When you say "free" instead of free, you change the meaning. Obvs.
Kevin said...
You can't say, "I think we need a woman in that office" and then vote for the candidate with the penis.
You can if you are sufficiently woke.
A more absurd reaction to supposedly free services has been folks freaking out over craigslist beginning to charge for services posting.
A millenial music instructor thought it obscene that Craig would do that to her business.
(Yes..she felt the Bern)
I’ve heard women here claim they hate working with other women and would rather work with men because women are such bitches.
It's not complicated nor is it strange. I'm retired from a large corporation and I've seen it play out. In theory no female manager is so stupid that she would undercut a promising female subordinate when undercutting that subordinate would mean hurting her own bottom line. In practice, I've watched it happen. And yes, when the female manager who wrecked her own bottom line lost her job it was because management was a "good old boys club," not because she was more interested in hurting her own female subordinates than making money for the firm.
Women can be crazy at times, and I don't find it a laughing matter.
>>"We're a private company, and we have a right to favor the left over the right."
"It's my lunch counter, and I can favor white people over blacks."
"It's my private college, and I can favor men over women."
Cue the Lefty Circle Squaring Team!
"Zuckerberg committed to avoiding political bias on Facebook."
-- And yet, they still have stupid "fact checks" on Conservative opinion pieces I'd bet.
"For example, if Facebook bans content only after it receives a complaint, and it only gets complaints based on the race of the speaker, is Facebook guilty of discrimination?"
-- Using the transitive property that caused CraigsList to shut down its personal ads: Yes.
In theory no male manager is so stupid that he would undercut a promising male subordinate when undercutting that subordinate would mean hurting his own bottom line. In practice, I've watched it happen. And yes, when the male manager who wrecked his own bottom line lost his job it was because management was a "good old girls club," not because he was more interested in hurting his own male subordinates than making money for the firm.
Men can be crazy at times, and I don't find it a laughing matter.
@Inga, I've never seen what you just described. But I have seen what I wrote about.
This is yet another time when you make up "truths" to fit your narrative, rather than adjust your narrative to fit the truth.
Big Mike, it's a game of Political MadLibs.
@Bad LT, of course, but ssshhhhhhhh. This is fun.
Big Mike, I've never seen what you just described. But I have seen what I wrote about.
“This is yet another time when you make up "truths" to fit your narrative, rather than adjust your narrative to fit the truth.”
Precisely what I thought when I read your comment. Uncanny, eh?
The 1st Amendment only says that the government may not restrict free speech.
Yeah, yeah, we know all that. Facebook has the right to censor anyone it wants to, for any reason. Some of us would just like to hear Zuckerberg admit that Facebook chooses to censor conservative views.
And civil rights law bans discrimination against blacks. Censoring Diamond and Silk would seem to be discrimination against blacks, since it is clearly their race that makes their views so "unsafe."
"Yeah, yeah, we know all that. Facebook has the right to censor anyone it wants to, for any reason."
-- Do they? Or do they have to bake the damn cake?
Big Mike, here’s my bottom line. I won’t for a second accept your lame anecdote, as it is simply another way of stereotyping women. I wasn’t born yesterday and your attempts at mansplainin’ is getting tiring. You are quite naive to think that I don’t recognize that you created a narrative to fit your own truth, as you accuse me of doing.
Clean your own room first, so to say...
Here is the problem with censorship: section 230 of the CDA provides safe harbor immunity to ISPs that don’t provide editorial control. Immunity for pretty much anything said by others, except involving IP (mostly C/R and TM). Censorship potentially brings companies out of the 230 safe harbor, making them liable for the torts, and maybe even crimes, of their users. A lot of torts, such as defamation, occur routinely online, but are never adjudicated because the cost of litigation swamps any potential recovery from the offender. Except, things may change bigly if these multibillion dollar companies like FB can be included as codefendants.
Inga will not accept your mansplaining, she womansplained.
"Fact checking" is for democrat operatives with bylines to make sure no information that might reflect badly on democrats sees the light of day.
As I typed at 9:40PM
Some crafty attorney somewhere out there can beat Facebook like a pinata and see what sort of money falls out.
Bruce Hayden gets it.
Thank you to the peanut gallery (Birkel) for the running narrative, whatever would the Althouse comments sections do without your Birkelsplaining?
Tell you what, I'll quit mocking you if you quit typing stupid things.
I’ll tell you what Birkel, I won’t pay attention to your attention seeking behavior.
We both know you don't have that capacity for self control.
Ted Cruz is a very unattractive man. Could you imagine him naked?
Ewww. I would rather do a women.
Titus:
I will see your Ted Cruz and raise you a Chris Dodd/Ted Kennedy manwich.
@Inga, here’s the real bottom line. The anecdote I mentioned really did happen, and not just with one woman or even with just two or three. This gets back to my earlier remark that when reality conflicts with your narrative you have the bad habit of rejecting reality instead of adjusting your narrative. It certainly isn’t a question of stereotyping; there are plenty of women who “get it” and are outstanding managers of both genders. What you are trying to do is hide the ones who are bitchy towards female subordinates behind the competent ones.
Completely agree Birkel. They are all gross.
I would do Kamala Harris though-she is hot. And Corey Booker, natch.
Kamala Harris is a DC 9.
She's a Hollyweird 4.
DC ain't for the pretty people.
Getting banned by FB was probably the best thing that ever happened to Diamond & Silk. They're now doing the rounds as martyrs to the cause on every right-of-center, & probably by now, even some left-of-center, news show in the country.
One has to ask -- is FB hiring its PR people from United Airlines? Telling two black middle aged ladies that they're a "danger to the community" for their over-the-top Trump support schtick? What a disaster!
The Zuck needs to find out who OK'd the decision to go after D & S and fire their asses right out the door!
Zuckerberg: No, we do not generally ask people about their political orientation when they’re joining the company.
If the goal is to have some kind of balance, then perhaps they should start asking. Have they tried recruiting from more conservative universities or areas of the country?
If it were about any other kind of diversity than political diversity, there would be questions about what FB is trying to do to fix it. His explanation should go over as well as telling feminists that a company only hired men because that's just who applied and was hired.
YoungHegelian and anybody else who will listen:
I think Diamond & Silk are set up pretty well for a business disparagement lawsuit. It's a tort with punitive damages available. They can make the prima facie case and get to discovery where the prize values really go up.
I know Facebook has lots of money for lawyers. So did the tobacco companies.
Inga is actually claiming that she has often seen men hurt their company in order to take another man down, and has never, EVER, seen a woman do the same thing.
As if we didn't already know from the Roy Moore incident that Inga is the antithesis of intellectual honesty, and that she will make up volumes of lies in service of her equally fictional narrative.
Big Mike, what you’re missing is that the behavior you describe isn’t seen only in women. That’s what you want to push, however that is not the reality. Perhaps you saw what happened in your little story in a different light than the way it actually went down. Also, even if your anecdote was completely accurate, you make the mistake of generalizing that behavior to all female interactions. I’ve seen men behaving badly toward other men, I’ve seen women behaving badly toward other women, but what I’ve also seen is that bad behavior isn’t gender specific.
Not to mention all the claims of fake kids to fit any needed narrative.
“Inga is actually claiming that she has often seen men hurt their company in order to take another man down, and has never, EVER, seen a woman do the same thing.”
Nope. I was using Big Mike’s example and turning it around on him to show him how absurd it is.
Bad behavior isn't gender specific? Good to know! I'm glad the #metoo movement will now focus every bit as much on sexual harassment by women against men as it does men against women. Or at least, it should be, that's what you're saying, right Inga?
“ Or at least, it should be, that's what you're saying, right Inga?”
Sure, but use your own name. #metoo has been taken.
Big Mike's example wasn't absurd in the slightest. Yours was absurd, and only highlighted how many times I've seen what he describes and how I've never seen what you describe.
“Big Mike's example wasn't absurd in the slightest. Yours was absurd, and only highlighted how many times I've seen what he describes and how I've never seen what you describe.”
Male bias, lol. Really that deserves a duh.
Ok, Inga, give us the non hilariously hypocritical reason why, if male victims of harassment count every bit as much as female victims, they are fairly excluded from #metoo and must get their "own name". In one breath you insist bad behavior isn't gender specific, and in the next breath insist that #metoo MUST get to keep branding their victimhood in an entirely gender specific way. You. Are. Loathsome.
“In one breath you insist bad behavior isn't gender specific, and in the next breath insist that #metoo MUST get to keep branding their victimhood in an entirely gender specific way. You. Are. Loathsome.”
Jesus. Seriously, you people need to get a sense of humor. My quip about getting your own name was tongue in cheek. You. Are. A. Humorless. Dolt.
"Secondly, why do people think that 'free speech' entitles them to use free services such as twitter, FB, or YouTube however they like? It doesn't. You want free speech, go start your own website."
1: Why do people think that "gay rights" entitles them to force a bakery to make a cake the baker doesn't want to make?
you want a cake for your SSM? Bake it!
2: "Publishers" have to right to decide what message they will present. "Common carriers" do not. DMCA protections only apply to common carriers.
So if Twitter, Facebook, and youTube want to be sued for every libelous thing they publish, every copyright infringement they publish, then by all means they can be publishers, and censor views they don't like.
But if they want the protections of common carriers, they have to BE common carriers, and that means no censorship.
Let a thousand lawsuits bloom. It does make me sad that I decided not to go to law school.
Sounds like Zuckerberg just made a very compelling case for Amazon to locate that second headquarters in the Midwest...
The backlash is coming and geographic diversity correlates with, or helps hedge, political diversity...
Look for California to continue to hemorrhage headquarters.... nobody needs a "fact checking" group staffed by Screaming Yale Girls...
It's always jokes when Inga is hypocritical.
Get it?
Yes, because male victims of harassment are har har funny to you. We get that.
So which is it? Is behavior gender specific, or is #metoo a disgustingly sexist movement? Your "sense of humor" doesn't entitle you to have it both ways.
Anybody here notice that not a single Leftist Collectivist would like to discuss the wrongness of Facebook keeping conservative opinions in second class positions.
The Leftists believe, down to their bones believe, that suppressing conservative speech is good and proper. They favor silencing the opposition.
The Leftist Collectivists hate conservatives. And they're declaring their hatred more and more directly as events unfold.
Titus: "Ewww. I would rather do a women."
Is Bella Abzug or Rosa DeLauro available?
Will said...
Sounds like Zuckerberg just made a very compelling case for Amazon to locate that second headquarters in the Midwest...
Sounds like Congress ( by holding hearings ) just made a very compelling case for Amazon to locate that second headquarters in D.C.
Don't need political diversity if you have political heft.
The intent of a speaker's words must lie with the speaker.
Anything else is madness, as demonstrated by this post.
Go ahead and feel offended by my speech, it is up to you to control your emotions, not up to me to do so. But don't expect me to be burdened with any requirement because of your out of control emotions.
Titus,
Cruz is just fine being passed over by your fab self.
But that Henry Waxman photo in your drawer has got to go.
An attractive women Drago. I can't do ugly. What is up with Rosa DeLauro?
Do Right leaning people have difficulty respecting or tolerating other viewpoints here?
The fact you're here every day running your mouth proves we are far more capable of tolerating your viewpoint.
If not? You'd be banned. Just like Diamond and Silk.
“You'd be banned. Just like Diamond and Silk.”
Blogger doesn’t provide an option for banning. Althouse deletes one specific commenter, but she cannot ban her. Now if Blogger were able to provide a mechanism to ban retarded gnats such as yourself, that would be a huge boon.
Ah, ok, Zuckerberg is just a young naive guy who didn't realize there was bias.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah - oh my! Althouse....
Zuckerberg is Evasive in his answers. Perhaps Ann views this as smart.
@Inga, so let's see where we're at here.
At 10:26 you wrote "I’ve heard women here claim they hate working with other women and would rather work with men because women are such bitches" and you then asserted that words to the effect that they were merely being bitchy.
At 12:08 upi wrote that you "won’t for a second accept [my] lame anecdote, as it is simply another way of stereotyping women."
At 12:54 you apparently acknowledge that the behavior I described "behavior [I] describe isn’t seen only in women," which implies that you recognize that it is seen in at least some women.
If I were a psychiatrist I would say that we've had a good session and that you're making progress.
He's working on it - yea, and I'm working on the next great American novel.
He's working on it - but he isn't working very hard on it. If he was, Diamond and Silk would be re-instated while Facebook reviewed how they were kicked off originally. If he was working on it, there would be some action or results visible. "I'm working on it" is a modified limited hangout - Cruz missed an opportunity to ask when and how we would see the results of him "working on it".
He's working on it in such a way that he can continue what he is doing without scrutiny.
I see all the "Facebook has the right to censor" comments and they're actually quite wrong.
The issue is something called Section 230 (article here: https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change) and how it protects web sites from liability based on content that they did not create. If these sites enter into too much censoring then they lose protection under this law and would be liable for any and all content on their site.
Zucky says he is not aware of that reg...
You know..he'll work on that.
Alllllways workin'.
Shorter Inga: "Women are never, ever bitchy towards each other and if you disagree, you are nothing but a shameless weaseling lying whore who couldn't get a man if you were the only woman on an island full of stranded sailors!"
I forget the exact insults Inga's used towards Mockturtle and other women whom Inga deems as "unpeople" because they don't agree that Marx and Mao were the greatest men who ever lived and that Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are the greatest examples of how (liberal) men should treat women, but it's something along those lines.
"Secondly, why do people think that 'free speech' entitles them to use free services such as twitter, FB, or YouTube however they like? It doesn't. You want free speech, go start your own website."
Does this apply to water fountains and lunch counters also?
“I forget the exact insults Inga's used towards Mockturtle and other women whom Inga deems as "unpeople" because they don’t agree...
Oh yes, you “forgot” all right... you forgot that I remember and won’t allow you to misrepresent discussions.
I guess you missed a thread a few days ago, with over 300 comments in which Mockturtle and I were in complete agreement and were arguing our point to several males who were very sensitive about the discussion of the male member and it’s size, lol.
And I know I’ve told you this before, when you use quotes, make sure you’re actually quoting and not pulling words I never said out of your arse.
More on point: It's amazing, isn't it, how you must bake the cake but Facebook can ignore you and do whatever they want.
And every liberal justification of that dichotomy is "But same sex attraction is a protected class and conservatives aren't!"
Which is true. Ever notice how every "Protected class" is a group that reliably votes Democrat, and they have more rights than the rest of us? Is there any group of people that isn't a 'protected class" that votes heavily Democrat? I can't think of any.
And notice that minorities that don't vote Democrat aren't "protected" either: Asians, Cubans, Mormons, etc. And any member of a protected class that crosses political boundaries is thrown out--Diamond and Silk are blacks, ergo in theory protected... but they aren't, are they? Discriminate all you want against them, or Clarence Thomas or Mia Love!
And who can forget Hillary calling every female who didn't vote Team Vagina a slave to her husband?
I love the way the thread ended until Tim left in a snit. He sure did take that remark from Mockturtle personally... weird.
Here’s the thread, it’s over 400 comments.
Tim said...
“This whole subthread started because Mockturtle called out B.A.G. for saying something unkind sexually about MoDo. I figured that “she who is without sin should cast the first stone.”
To me, the fascinating thing is that you can’t see it.”
Inga said...
Not only DID I see it, I agreed with Mockturtle wholeheartedly. What is fascinating to me is that you seem think she committed some mortal sin.
4/9/18, 12:08 PM
mockturtle said...
This whole subthread started because Mockturtle called out B.A.G. for saying something unkind sexually about MoDo. I figured that “she who is without sin should cast the first stone.”
TTinV: As I remarked to B.A.G., I was being facetious, not calling him out at all. But you make a good point about Althouse readership and penis size. Maybe a POLL is in order! I'll start: Mine is <1cm. There, now don't you feel better?
4/9/18, 12:17 PM
Inga said...
Anyone caught mocking the PENIS will be damned to an eternity of being called a feminist!
DO NOT MOCK THE PENIS!
4/9/18, 12:21 PM
Congratulations Inga: you've come up with one instance where you weren't being a bitch to a reliable conservative woman. Proud, are you?
Yes, I missed that thread, but who cares? Your claim is that women aren't bitchy towards each other. So all anyone has to do is demonstrate an instance when they are... and you've been disproven.
As for my "quotes" that you have issues with: I very clearly identify it as a paraphrase or summary. The quote marks are to distinguish between the paraphrase and the rest of the commentary. If I actually am quoting you, I will say so. And when I paraphrase or summarize you, I say that as well. No one should be confuse.
Here is a quote from you, for instance: "What is your problem today Mockturtle? From personal attacks on another thread to your snide comment here. Did you accidentally take a bitch pill instead of your BP med? I guess being civil to you was misconstrued as weakness." Source.
I hope you can see the difference.
Facebook dismantled my news feed during the 2016 election. A couple of weeks after the election was over, it started working again.
The most astounding thing to me was there was no mechanism for reporting the problem to Facebook. All of their "tools" were for reporting the bad speech of other people.
“Congratulations Inga: you've come up with one instance where you weren't being a bitch to a reliable conservative woman. Proud, are you?”
Are you proud of being a liar? I get along quite well with most conservative women on this blog. There is one particular woman with whom I’ve bumped heads, but on the whole I like and appreciate the female commenters here and am darn glad they comment. It would be nice to have some more liberal females who are comment more regularity.
How do you get along with the liberal male commenters here? You’re quite the bitch yourself.
@ Vance,
Also, I think by now people know I defend myself, but I don’t hold grudges, because I am a Christian. Mockturtle is also a Christian and we have found we can agree and get past times in which we may have been rude to one another. I doubt Mockturtle will say she has never been in the wrong and in that ill agree with her once more, I’ve been wrong too.
Your turn Vance, let’s hear you tell everyone here how you’ve never thrown the first stone and are without sin.
Well, Inga, considering people like TTR routinely express glee over killing conservatives, why would I get along with them?
Your side is actively trying to destroy America and our Constitution. Why, exactly, should I be chums with people like that? People who think that they should control my speech, where I can worship, where I can work, whether I can protect myself; who I can associate with; whether I can even have an attorney to defend myself from, well, people like you in power.
Althouse is in Wisconsin. Have you not seen her chronicles of sheer, unbridled leftist insanity and total lust for power and the concurrent abuses they inflict on people they disagree with?
And yet the vast indifferent silence from almost all of you and your sides speaks volumes. Only Robert Cook is honestly troubled by leftist violence; intimidation, and politics of personal destruction. You and the rest of your side either remain silent or openly cheers it all on. How many months now has it been where you categorically refuse to say anything bad about the Steve Scalise shooter; claiming that it's "Torture" to ask you to denounce leftist murder attempts. You'd rather be waterboarded, as I recall, than say "Shooting Republicans in cold blood is wrong!"
Why should any of us be chummy with people who are slavering at the bit to send us to the Gulags like your side is?
Robert Cook is an honest, if misguided leftist. He has ideals. TTR? He would almost certainly volunteer to be the person deciding who to send to the "showers" at the camps. And I'm supposed to be chummy towards him?
I remember people here saying that women supporting a female candidate are only doing so because “it’s all about the vagina”.
1) I don't recall women being the least bit hesitant to say that the reason they were voting for Hillary was because she was a woman. In fact I recall many women saying that women who didn't vote for Hillary were traitors and inauthentic women.
2) Starting a movement to encourage women to wear a vagina on their head in public tends to give the impression that all that matters to women is vaginas.
Oh Vance, can you ever get beyond your blah blah blah blah same old same old tired boring attacks on people who don’t see things the way you do? Can you ever stop lying and mischaracterizing what liberal commenters say here?
I live in Wisconsin too and no I did not see unbridled leftist insanity and total lust for power. I saw people demonstrating for what they believed in and protesting against what they perceived as being an injustice.
I do see some comments from you that have me wondering what whirlwinds go on in your mind that cause you to say the things you do. You are one of the extremists here. Most Althouse commenters are thoughtful and rational, even if I disagree with them. The typical conservative commenters here make you look very nutty in contrast.
@Vance, think of Inga as the ugly girl in high school homeroom who acts out because she is unable to — dare I write the word? — garner positive attention, so she sets out to get negative attention because that is better than no attention at all. Deal with her with patience, as adult to wayward child.
LOL!
BIG Mike, That’s pretty funny, because I always pictured you as the fat angry pimply faced nerd in high school who hated the pretty girls because he knew they would shoot him down.
Got me wrong, sweetie. Varsity athlete, slender through the waist but broad in the shoulders, straight A's. Married a raven-haired beauty who was published in the Physical Review.
I'm strongly opposed to regulation of internet firms. I can't see anything good coming from making the government more powerful. However, I do favor legislation giving consumers property rights in all their data - not just information about them but information about their online habits, customs, searches and so on. Let Facebook and Google pay people to use that information. Many will probably sell it in exchange for access to the platform. Others won't. The market will work it out.
I live in Wisconsin too and no I did not see unbridled leftist insanity and total lust for power. I saw people demonstrating for what they believed in and protesting against what they perceived as being an injustice.
That's because you didn't want to see it. But the left-wing violence and thuggery over Act 10 was well-documented on this very site.
And that doesn't even get into the John Doe raids.
Deny you and your fellow leftist travelers are totalitarian goons. Doesn't matter to me. But the rest of us see it. Clearly.
Where's the savaging?!
In the propaganda-oriented minds of the writers at The Federalist, obviously.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा