"NPR reports that 'The European Union’s competition czar has a message for Twitter’s new boss Elon Musk: We are watching you.' The report quotes Margrethe Vestager, the European Commission’s executive vice president overseeing digital policy, who warned: 'There is a European rulebook, and you should live by it. Otherwise, we have the penalties. We have the fines. We have all the assessments and all the decisions that will come to haunt you.' She doesn’t sound like someone Musk wants to mess with. MAGA Republicans in the United States might be celebrating Musk’s takeover as a triumph of 'one of their own,' but Democrats might be in power in the years to come. They might be tempted to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal provision that protects social media platforms from liability for content published on their sites. (Even eliminating such protections for the owners of the platform could bring the curtain down on the Musk show.)"
Writes Jennifer Rubin in "Musk can trash his sandbox. The rest of us don’t have to play there" (WaPo).
I guess Rubin loves the "European rulebook" and the idea that the Democratic Party will act aggressively to push back free speech. That's rather awful. It has really been sad to see the "right wing" label slapped on everything. In my little world, I've had it happen to me. It's really awful. What does it take to make a person "right wing" these days? It seems to be only a strong position in favor of free speech! I remember when "free speech" was a left-wing battle cry.
पोस्ट्स
१२८ टिप्पण्या:
If supporting free speech is "right wing," then I am proudly Right Wing.
So what will Europe do about it?
"Shake their fist at the sky"?
As Elon said about their objections to Starlink.
I suppose they could, like China does, block it on the internet. That would not be a good look for them.
Does Twitter have any assets in Europe? Do they need them?
As a serious question, what can they do if Elon just tells them to piss up a rope?
John Stop fascism vote republican Henry
No! Not European Regulators!
"And while Musk remains a darling of the right wing in America..."
Again, with this. Tons of people think he's a charlatan. On both sides.
No Jen, you do not get to claim other's acquaintance because he's messing up YOUR sandbox...
If section 230 is repealed, can't Twitter just stop all monitoring and moderation? That would make them like the phone company.
"We just provide the wires. We don't know or care what people say."
"We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to." Lilly Tomlin
John Stop fascism vote republican Henry
And remember the QUESTION AUTHORITY bumper stickers. Wow has that flipped!
Jennifer Rubin is excruciatingly radical leftwing.
So the Europeans have decided that whatever inchoate, unannounced (much less enacted) changes Musk might make will necessarily invoke fines, punishments, and the like. Or does the EU send such warnings to every social media company that experiences a change of ownership/management?
She would fit right in with the Democratic party in 2022.
If Section 230 is repealed, it will be the end of comments on my blog.
Also, Section 230 cannot be repealed just for Twitter - Dems would have to do the same for all social media, which their Silicon Valley corporate overlords do not want.
If Section 230 is repealed, it will be the end of comments on my blog.
It’s been fun.
"And while Musk remains a darling of the right wing in America, European regulators are watching closely."
I think the United States would be better if we shipped Jennifer Rubin to Europe one way.
She does raise an interesting point. But it would have been better without the polemical language and the gloating. I guess, though, that it's the spin that gets attention, not the actual facts and the less biased conclusions drawn from the facts.
In a globalized world, governments can create real problems for Elon. That's one reason why he would have done better to start something new, rather than buy Twitter, which is more likely to go down in the future, rather than up.
Because Musk remains a darling of the right wing in America, European regulators are watching closely.
Ahouse Comments said...
If section 230 is repealed, can't Twitter just stop all monitoring and moderation? That would make them like the phone company.
It isn't section 230 that is the problem.
It is the judicial interpretation that allows platforms to act like publishers without the legal consequences of being a publisher.
It would be fun to watch their faces if Elon Musk responded by saying that he could spend a billion dollars to support their political opponents in the next election, and in doing oppo research to find skeletons in their closets (and manufacture a few if needed), and not notice that he’d spent it.
"It isn't section 230 that is the problem. It is the judicial interpretation that allows platforms to act like publishers without the legal consequences of being a publisher."
It would be possible to change section 230 to solve this problem — draw the line somewhere. But Rubin is talking about *repealing* it. I have to moderate my comments to keep out certain kinds of posters that I believe are trying to ruin this place. Where would a change to 230 happen that would not make me vulnerable for lawsuits based on comments?
"What does it take to make a person "right wing" these days?"
Being nonprog.
"I remember when "free speech" was a left-wing battle cry."
Once upon a time there were liberals who believed the battle cry. But even then it was a tool.
Althouse's virtue and problem is her last-of-the-Mohicans liberalism.
I do not trust politicians to draw the line (or courts to save us). We have to actually care about free speech as a people, and it seems as though half the country is in the process of deciding that free speech is a right-wing shibboleth.
There is an incredible story in the complete degeneration of Jennifer Rubin into a totalitarian muppet.
"Too bad if something were to happen to it." Do people understand what thugs they are?
The right-wing position in regards to Section 230 is that if you are banning content that is not outright illegal, if you are trying to censor "hate speech" and other content then you are no longer a common carrier, you have crossed the line into being a publisher.
The whole point of Section 230 was so that ISPs would not be liable for their users' speech, so that free speech could flourish online. I've been online since before it was called the Internet and web browsers existed. I corrected an EFF pub for new internet users that had incorrect info on configuring your Usenet reader. I remember the argument quite well. The people against Section 230 posted the vilest stuff imaginable into forums not meant for it so they could say, "if we don't regulate the internet this sort of stuff will be everywhere."
So now we are at the point where hardcore porn is easily accessible to anyone with a smart phone, but the government is telling social media platforms what they need to suppress because it is "misinformation."
Jennifer Rubin is another one that deserves to be beaten to death with a hammer.
I do not trust politicians to draw the line (or courts to save us). We have to actually care about free speech as a people, and it seems as though half the country is in the process of deciding that free speech is a right-wing shibboleth.
-Ann
Worth a nice hearty bold + repeat.
Thanks, Ron
"The right-wing position in regards to Section 230 is that if you are banning content that is not outright illegal, if you are trying to censor "hate speech" and other content then you are no longer a common carrier, you have crossed the line into being a publisher."
The moment this interpretation goes into effect, I will be forced to end comments on this blog and un-display all the existing comments (over 4 million comments).
If this is "the right-wing position," then I can't credit the right wing with caring about free speech.
Jennifer Rubin in "Musk can trash his sandbox. The rest of us don’t have to play there" (WaPo)
This is very true, those who don't wish to play there can move or make another platform. Truth Social or such.
Musk's response would likely to be to tell the EU to pound sand up their asses. Twitter doesn't need a physical presence in the EU to operate. Sure, the EU could be force their ISPs to block Twitter, but so fucking what? Let them do that.
Althouse noted: We have to actually care about free speech as a people, and it seems as though half the country is in the process of deciding that free speech is a right-wing shibboleth.
An uncomfortably nativist point, here.
If a citizen:
1) grew up in a culture that does not value free speech or,
2) has been educated in a system that does not value free speech or,
3) has parents who do not value free speech,
why would we assume that free speech will maintain its place as a value in the USA over time?
Maybe that's part of what the media consensus means when they say we're "losing our democracy". When we can convince 50% +1 to drop free speech from the system de facto, we can wave goodbye. People can and will lose their jobs if they point this out these days.
Can't have that. Mortgage is due. Kids need braces. Have you seen what college costs?
Where would a change to 230 happen that would not make me vulnerable for lawsuits based on comments?
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.
I'd say you're vulnerable to lawsuits right now regardless of Section 230. You're already plainly deciding what comments to publish or not publish based on a personal decision (see above, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing). To expand on Achilles' point, you are not presenting your blog as a service for anyone to post which would require you to have a legal safe harbor to evaluate posted material versus "community standards", which is how the big boys like FaceBook and Twitter slide into Section 230 covering their government-approved censorship efforts.
So this is the same as the US government spooks farming their Trump surveillance out to the UK?
If leftwing totalitarians get their hands on speech control - they will use it.
Oh wait -they have!
See Here for details.
If Section 230 is repealed, it will be the end of comments on my blog.
It will be the end of comments on every blog.
I should be inured to this by now, but it still shocks me to hear journalists - journalists! - either gleeful or, as here, concern trolling about more, and more stringent, regulation of speech.
Ann Althouse said...
I do not trust politicians to draw the line (or courts to save us). We have to actually care about free speech as a people, and it seems as though half the country is in the process of deciding that free speech is a right-wing shibboleth.
Except they have always believed that.
When we are in power they believe in free speech because that adheres to our principles.
When they are in power they take away our free speech because that adheres to their principles.
Just like a democracy is a tool they use and discard when they achieve power.
Brazil is about to melt down because one corrupt province run by the narco cartels found just enough ballots to elect the socialist that had his convictions for corruption thrown out annulled by a corrupt judge. Every other province voted for Bolsonaro and the corrupt province came in late with a bunch of magic votes.
A lot like how they got the obviously corrupt Joe Biden into power here.
This is a global movement that has deep roots in human social structures that grow out of core biological imperatives. They are tribal creatures that are only interested in power for their tribe.
Principles like Free Speech and Equal treatment under the law have not made it into their primitive minds.
Jennifer Rubin is a joke. While she claimed to be conservative she is worse than MANY of the Progressives she used to hate. She has become what she hated most. The Washington Post is a joke for keeping her on, instead of getting an ACTUAL conservative voice.
"CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Jennifer Rubin's thoughts are garbage. Loathsome individual.
It began a long time ago. I saw Dick Gregory at the University of Iowa moons ago and he was transgressive in defense of free speech, a concept quite important to the anti war protesters at the time. He freely used the N word ( notice how a word is not allowed to be spelled out?) and even wrote a book with the N word as the title. He saw it all coming. . And then we began to allow the concept of hate speech and hate crimes into common usage. A murder of a black became worse than the murder of a white. Saying bad but true things against the believers of Islam, pointing out IQ differences between races, questioning Covid shut downs. All no no’s. We have let it happen. In so many ways we deserve it. Read Gibbon. He explains it.
We all know the deal--Musk is a right winger only to left-wingers whose Manichean world view allows for only left-wingers and not left-wingers (with "right-winger" being the epithet used to describe the not left-wingers).
Does Rubin ever explain how the Democrats are going to repeal Section 230 only for Musk, while leaving it in place for the good soldiers of the left who run most of the rest of social media?
It’s called repressive tolerance. Scream free speech when the left is attacked or even questioned. After the left is in power, free speech will destroy democracy, you see. Democracy is only legit when the left is in ascendancy. It is very simple.
Sebastian said...Once upon a time there were liberals who believed the battle cry.
Once upon a time, there were liberals who believed in liberal values. Today, people who support liberal values vote Republican.
"In her capacity as Commissioner for Competition, Vestager has gained international recognition for investigating, fining, or bringing lawsuits against major multinational companies including Google,[7] Apple Inc.,[8] Amazon,[9] Facebook, Qualcomm,[10] and Gazprom.[11][12] She has been described as "the rich world's most powerful trustbuster"[13] and "the world's most famous regulator""
She seems to be consistent with her brand.
"What does it take to make a person "right wing" these days? It seems to be only a strong position in favor of free speech! I remember when "free speech" was a left-wing battle cry."
The cynical explanation may be the best: When potential censors were on the right, the left was in favor of free speech. When potential censors are on the left, the left is in favor of censorship.
Though there is perhaps a more nuanced explanation. Most everyone on the left believes some variation of, "Government is about the public interest; markets are about private greed"--or to pump up the alliteration, "The public sector is about the public interest; the private sector is about private interest." In a clash between public and private interest, the public interest must prevail, which means the government must prevail. Many on the left have a warm feeling toward a sort of benevolent socialism or quasi-socialism.
Ronald Coase pointed out in 1974's The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas that if you think the government should control the market for goods, logic requires you to support government control of the market for ideas. After all, bad ideas can lead to bad, even terrible, things, and people often don't have the information or skills to choose between ideas. Shouldn't the good and the true and the educated do that for them?
It has really been sad to see the "right wing" label slapped on everything. In my little world, I've had it happen to me. It's really awful.
Why? What is so intrinsically bad about being rightwing?
No one expects the EU Inquisition!
(Actually, yes, everyone does.)
I am trying to find a serviceable definition for provider that will prevent Facebook and YouTube from restricting content based on viewpoint but not put Althouse in trouble for content moderation. I would think that size, service/purpose would be distinctives. Althouse does not provide a platform for people to communicate, it only allows users to add their comments to the publications. YouTube does not publish and invite comments, it provides the platform for others to publish. So I could see a platform being restricted from preventing publishers from posting, but could restrict commenters from replying. I am not sure what we would do with Twitter which thrives on user comments where commenters are also publishers. I am of the opinion that Althouse needs the protection more than I want to nail Facebook.
The obvious physical and mental deterioration of Rubin during her descent into madness has been something to behold.
I'd say you're vulnerable to lawsuits right now regardless of Section 230. You're already plainly deciding what comments to publish or not publish based on a personal decision (see above, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing). To expand on Achilles' point, you are not presenting your blog as a service for anyone to post which would require you to have a legal safe harbor to evaluate posted material versus "community standards", which is how the big boys like FaceBook and Twitter slide into Section 230 covering their government-approved censorship efforts.
It would help considerably if you were to read the actual text of 47 USC § 203., particularly subsection (c)(2).
- Krumhorn
"...sad to see the "right wing" label slapped on everything."
When they say right-wing, they're saying white-wing. That's the whole deal right there.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
If Section 230 is repealed, it will be the end of comments on my blog.
Again ? We already have an alternative platform.
Forcing everything into right- or left- wing buckets is a necessity for a lot of people. They have to put the ideological cart in front of the horse of reality before they can commit to an opinion or preference.
It's tribal, as Achilles says. (I'm not an exception--I am strongly prejudiced in favor of myself and my tribe, the Nobody's Wing.)
MAGA Republicans in the United States might be celebrating Musk’s takeover as a triumph of 'one of their own,' but Democrats might be in power in the years to come.
Odd use of quotes around "one of their own." It suggests Republicans are calling Musk "one of their own" not "one of our own." Otherwise, the term works fine without quotes. Rubin is a very unsure writer.
MAGA Republicans in the United States might be celebrating Musk’s takeover as a triumph of 'one of their own,' but Democrats might be in power in the years to come.
Odd use of quotes around "one of their own." It suggests Republicans are calling Musk "one of their own" not "one of our own." Otherwise, the term works fine without quotes. Rubin is a very unsure writer.
btw -
At the TOP of Twitter right now:
"It takes time to count all of the votes
It’s expected to take multiple days to count the votes, so the projected winners of some elections might not be announced yet. This means you could encounter unconfirmed claims that a candidate has won their race."
Rubin is probably more sensitive than most to Twitter changes, as Ron Klain, the White House Chief of Staff, regularly retweets her tweets and columns. The heir to the Rush Limbaugh legacy, the Ruthless podcast, even has a segment called "Klain to Fame," in which four outlandish tweets are read and the contestants have to guess which one was *not* retweeted by Klain. Rubin features prominently in the game. In the big dumb middle-school-cafeteria that is Washington, DC, those retweets are basically the class president inviting you to sit at his table. It's hard to think of an alternative signal Rubin might find. Best guess: she pays the $8/month for the blue check and keeps showing her friends at brunch that Ron retweeted her on Thursday.
Today's left is ready and willing to exchange freedom for security.
Rubin sucks at mind reading.
What it takes is countering feelings with considerations of structural stability, to get called right wing.
Free speech hurts feelings; without free speech the system collapses into tyranny.
The left's skill is not being able to anticipate perverse consequences.
All Twitter has to do is set up different servers, physical or virtual, for Europe.
Anyone that visits from a European IP Address gets the censored content.
And let the eu decide what is censored.
And I would make the entire process transparent. Including what keywords, people, etc the Eu requested to be censored.
A big frustration of mine is so much censorship is hidden, and done behind the scenes to avoid any first amendment challenges. And the US Governments involvement is troubling, and appears highly politicized and selective.
Musk is doing zingers.
Classical liberal. The left is a phenomenon of a progressive process: one step forward, two steps backward.
Excuse me, but what exactly would have triggered this? How has Twitter changed overnight to suddenly become a monopolistic threat to competition that would raise the ire of the EU? How has putting a stop to the rampant views-based censorship, as well as the more insidious tactics of ghosting, flooding certain accounts with bot-swarms, de-listing followers, and - almost forgot - actively colluding with the federal government to allow them to violate the First Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of US citizens, clandestinely and without explanation - how is it, that now the sad and evil era has ended, now Twitter is suddenly a threat to decency?
Oh - Jennifer Rubin. Never mind.
"I remember when 'free speech' was a left-wing battle cry."
And it ceased to be the moment they got their hands on real power.
That ought to be revealing.
Embrace die Propagandaministerium. If only Leni were here to chronicle the progress! Maybe she could get the dems to march in synch just like the old days!
" ...And defend it to your death to say it"
I remember those days too!
"Dissent is Patriotic!"
- circa 2002
Ann, get it correct. You're not just 'right'. No one is just 'right'. You're far right. Which is a weird place for a lifelong Liberal to find themselves.
That said, Jennifer Rubin writes "Musk can trash his sandbox. The rest of us don’t have to play there", which is true. That's the beauty of free speech. On the other end of free speech is free listening. Or not. Check out the shrinking Washington Post subscriber roll to note this idea in action.
Much of Europe will be lucky not to freeze to death this winter.
I remember when opposition to loyalty oaths was a left wing battle cry, when political litmus tests for employment were shocking violations of civil liberties, and when refusing to testify before Congress about your political associates was a sacred duty.
Maybe we should refuse to engage with and reject writing by people who use terms like right wing, denier, dezinformácija or the English derivatives favored by the new democrat fascists, dis- mis- and maligformation and include anyone who uses MAGA as a word instead of as an acronym meaning "make America great again."
What exactly do democrats have against making our country great? It truly is puzzling to observe.
Ann,
The issue is around section 230 is about Blogger.com as a platform, not the individual blog owners. It's at a different level. You're not providing the service, but using the service. I'd expect that content moderation at the "blogger" level would remain, just like it would at Twitter where I could unfollow you or block you.
Where Twitter (and Blogger.com) get in trouble is that they're not content neutral with their moderation. If Twitter or Blogger.com doesn't like your content they can kick you off. They're acting as publishers when they do that, not platforms. They're either platforms (where actual illegal content is monitored) or they're publishers (where they're liable). They want their cake and to eat, it too. Section 230 reforms would force them to choose which one they want to be and accept the consequences.
The right-wing position in regards to Section 230 is that if you are banning content that is not outright illegal, if you are trying to censor "hate speech" and other content then you are no longer a common carrier, you have crossed the line into being a publisher.
I have a different take on this. Pretending to only counter violent or "hate speech" while practicing content moderation is wrong and is what the social media companies are doing that frustrates users. For one, this leaves little room for satire which has always been protected under the First Amendment. My God, what would Facebook do to a user who tried to FB Live a "War of the Worlds" broadcast today?
But Althouse as presented on blogger is clearly a curated forum. She allows submissions and prints what fits her clearly stated criteria. Yes, Althouse is "publishing" but this blog is NOT a common carrier like FB and Twitter and Youtube pretend to be. It isan opinion and discussion forum and we accept Althouse's terms, meaning when we hit "submit" after writing we have no reasonable assurance it will ever see the light of day. Althouse or Meade make that call. But when I tweet I expect by words will appear on Twitter as written every time, within reasonable limits like threats and n-words. Vastly different. Section 230 is to protect those common carriers from what random people publish assuming free speech is the norm.
But on antisocial media run by liberals, it is NOT the norm. They took the deal and reneged on their common carrier responsibilities. Worse they ban, distort, restrict or amplify "narratives" in cahoots with the Feds and Democrats: this should open them up to anti-trust action IMHO. I'd break up FB today if I was running Congress.
White House deletes tweet after being fact checked by... everyone.
Elon Musk
@elonmusk · Follow
The system is working 🤣
The illegitimate Biden Regime is falling before the most powerful weapon of Truth:
The Power of Mockery
Democrats are not just terrible people.
They are also just fucking stupid and they are led by Joe Biden.
In 5 years everyone in the country will have opposed Joe Biden.
Rumble rejects French Government demand for control over content.
"Pavlovski and Rumble being transparent and making the demand from the French government public raises a few questions.
Rumble said ‘no’, but who said ‘yes’?"
"(New York Post) – A little-noticed federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, is uncovering astonishing evidence of an entrenched censorship scheme cooked up between the federal government and Big Tech that would make Communist China proud."
Yeah the next few years are going to be glorious.
Really the entire Democrat party and their republican allies are fascist shitheads and deserve to be treated as such.
They are completely incompatible with a free society and incompatible elements need to be suppressed.
Supporting free speech for Communists isn't the same as supporting free speech.
If you take all the letters from the name Elon Musk, they add up to January 6 😉
its simple they wanted the communists to win and prevail and they have spread their toxic ideology in many ways since then, critical race theory, critical legal theory cultural marxism,
I grew up in the same world as Althouse. People like us read "1984" in high school and were clear about the intent of "War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength." It isn't about left or right. It is about freedom of thought vs. totalitarianism. At the end, Winston Smith loves Big Brother, and 2+2=5, if that is what the Party requires.
Freedom of thought is a liberal value. Reactionaries and collectivist ideologues embrace dogma.
So, where do we live today? In these comments we have a pretty free-wheeling space, but we don't see the stuff that Althouse takes out through moderation. I expect that it would add nothing but could kill the blog.
If you have any close friends who are in humanities departments of colleges and universities, ask them--if they are willing to talk--what they cannot say. They all have a list. Most of the things on their lists are observations about individuals, groups, and human behavior. Heaven forbid that anyone should make observations about the real world and compare them with theory!
My good friend has a son in a graduate program at a major US university. In a psychology class, he made some comments identified by him as being for the sake of argument. After the class, he got a note from the professor. He is required now to go through diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
Will he say he loves Big Brother?
You can't fly with only one wing. - Former Twitter afficionado.
Shorter Rubin - Free speech for me and not for thee.
The European regulators seen to think that Twitter makes a lot of money in Europe.
This seems highly unlikely.
So they can "watch" all they want. But Musk is going to have an easier time telling them to FOAD than they are going to have trying to tell him what he has to do
Elon Musk tweeted this out in support of his new fee structure for Twitter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=186s
(over 4 million comments).
Wow! I wonder if I've made it to 1000.
Repeal section 230 and social media dominance of consumer use of the internet collapses. They all rely on user generated content. It is not economically feasible for Facebook to create its own content and it is not economical for Facebook to police user content for libel.
Imagine if Althouse were legally liable for someone in her comment section telling lies about an identifiable person.
"If supporting free speech is 'right wing,' then I am proudly Right Wing."
It's neither right wing nor left wing; enemies of free speech and champions for free speech both are and always have been found in those in the right and the left and in the gradations between. Champions for free speech are always in the minority, across the spectrum.
Does Usenet still exist? In the ips and 90s it made Twitter look like a Sunday school.
Maybe we need it back.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
If Twitter withdrew from the European Union - just stopped offering its product there, would anyone really notice or care? Twixet?
"Today, people who support liberal values vote Republican."
Hahaha!
No.
Well, maybe a few. Mostly, they hold their noses and vote for the Democrats hoping for the best--or at least not the worst--or they vote for third parties, and some probably don't vote at all.
From the post:
"What does it take to make a person "right wing" these days? It seems to be only a strong position in favor of free speech! I remember when "free speech" was a left-wing battle cry."
More than that, anyone who deviates from the approved narrative on a single point is pigeon-holed as "far-right."
"And it ceased to be the moment they got their hands on real power."
When did that happen? (Surely, you don't see [most] Dems as "left.")
Right wing vs. left wing in Europe- which type of socialism and government control should there be?
Right winge vs. left wing in the USA- individual freedon vs. government control.
They're not the same thing. Our politics does not compare to theirs.
Our left wing wants our politics to be like theirs. They're the big supporters of government control.
“It has really been sad to see the "right wing" label slapped on everything. In my little world, I've had it happen to me. It's really awful.”
The idea at that back of that is that being called right wing is really awful.
Roger Sweeney said...
"Though there is perhaps a more nuanced explanation. Most everyone on the left believes some variation of, "Government is about the public interest; markets are about private greed"--or to pump up the alliteration, "The public sector is about the public interest; the private sector is about private interest." In a clash between public and private interest, the public interest must prevail, which means the government must prevail. Many on the left have a warm feeling toward a sort of benevolent socialism or quasi-socialism."
Many on the left fail to recognize that there is such a thing as public sector greed; the difference is that there remains no recourse against the public sector's greed as there is against private/corporate greed
Jen Rubin is dumber than a sack of hammers even by Washington standards.
"its simple they wanted the communists to win and prevail and they have spread their toxic ideology in many ways since then, critical race theory, critical legal theory cultural marxism,"
Who is "they," and where is it they wanted the communists to win? Did they win? Where?
Jennifer Rubin is fine with trashing the sandbox, but only the left is allowed to do that.
wendybar,
The Washington Post is a joke for keeping her on, instead of getting an ACTUAL conservative voice.
The WaPo would indeed be silly if it were currently calling Rubin a conservative, but I think they stopped doing that a long time ago. But there are various actual conservatives (and libertarians) on its Op-Ed pages. I'm thinking
George Will
Greg Abernathy
Marc Thiessen
Hugh Hewitt
Henry Olsen
Megan McArdle
that new guy I can't remember offhand -- oh, right, Jason Willick
Granted, all these people seem to have been hired as cockshies for the rabid trolls who inhabit the WaPo comments section. But still, they're there.
EU, eh? Who remembers Zuckerberg agreeing to help Merkel with message control? What a bunch of totalitarians.
Is Ann right wing? Why don't we ask her most prolific commentators, almost all semi-fascists. But they tune in to this blog not because they agree with Ann but to show the world how open minded they are to opposing views. Got it.
An objective review of Ann's posts over the past two years would establish beyond reasonable doubt that Ann's views are quite far to the right. Don't deny it. Embrace it.
For Musk to take risks the way he does, it shows he has a tremendous faith in the American way. It's uplifting, in a time when daring, especially in his weight class, is all too rare.
How far gone do you have to be to longingly wish for an American jobs and wealth creator to be brought low by foreigners with little to no accountability?
If it wasn't for free speech, in America's terms, we wouldn't know how Rubin really feels.
Thank goodness. Proving the old liberal adage; the best way to counter bad speech, allow for more speech.
The EU is just looking for assurances from Musk that he won't ban them the way Trump was banned on Jan 6. The US media won't let on, but the Euro heads of state were not too happy about the prospect of having their accounts shut off on a whim by Vijaya Gadde.
As far as Jen Rubin goes...well...she's a fucking loon.
I can't imagine why all those British voters wanted to Brexit the European Union.
Oh, that was kinda snarky. That means I'm a liberal?
Excellent comments. I always benefit from this exchange.
I can't add much except to note that freedom of speech is a key element in the larger game we call civilized life. That game is "infinite" in the sense that we don't want it to end, we want to keep playing, and each time we offer a thought, we do so in the hope and expectation that it will produce another thought, maybe many other thoughts, which can confirm or correct or challenge or reject or qualify or embellish or otherwise continue the game. And everybody comes away with more than they began.
Censorship is about imposing a point of view, forcing a certain value. You can't dance to censorship, you sit quietly and nod. And when the music stops, there's nothing.
Professora asked == What does it take to make a person "right wing" these days?
========
and Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker said...
Jennifer Rubin is excruciatingly radical leftwing.
...
you are correct Sir >> if left wing never looked bad to her then easy to find right wing when she dislikes anything at all against her worldview
The European regulators seen to think that Twitter makes a lot of money in Europe.
=========
does Twitter ''make any $$$'' in USA? [aka profit not just revenue]
Haven't read the other comments yet--has anybody clued Jen into the fact that she is now 100% in agreement with...Yes, DONALD TRUMP!! regarding the repeal of Section 230?
Musk should sell twitter to Trump.
It has really been sad to see the "right wing" label slapped on everything. In my little world, I've had it happen to me. It's really awful
That's the way the 'woke' operate. You, Prof Althouse, have gotten trapped by the wokes favorite past time. The only option is full throated active advocacy. Any thing less gets you labeled as occupying the opposite position.
What I find most interesting, those defending the Constitution, and rule of law get labeled as Conservative. Althouse, Derschowitz, Turley. All liberal/libertarian, but labeled 'right wing'.
Jennifer Rubin is a joke. While she claimed to be conservative she is worse than MANY of the Progressives she used to hate. She has become what she hated most.
Conservative is a problematic label... depends on what you seek to conserve, doesn't it? Rubin seems to be no friend of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution generally. What she seeks to conserve is the unconstitutional power of the Administrative State and the elites who populate its halls.
What does it take to make a person "right wing" these days?
Ask Robert Cook! he'll explain it to you.. In Detail !
jim5301,
OK, am I not among the "most prolific commenters"? Or am I not a "semi-fascist"? Or are there cracks of daylight in there, such that I might be neither?
Frankly, I'll happily be a "semi-fascist," by your own definition. And by the same token, I will also admit to commenting here frequently.
But what is the ever-lovin' point? Why talk about "fascism" to people who don't know what fasces are? (Hint: Hillary Clinton's "Stronger Together" is literally what fasces are: the fasces are a bundle of sticks, easy to break individually, hard to break when many are bound together.) Fascism a la Mussolini also foregrounded the state collaborating with private industry. These days, that's called "public-private partnerships," and no one calls it fascist, unless he disagrees with the desired end product.
"If supporting free speech is 'right wing,' then I am proudly Right Wing."
Robert Cook: "It's neither right wing nor left wing;"
LOL
Support of free speech is entirely centrist and right wing. There are zero left wing defenders of free speech as is evidenced every single day in every single way everywhere.
To argue otherwise is typical of marxists like cookie who want you to disbelieve the evidence of your eyes and ears.
It has always been thus and will always be thus.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
"It has really been sad to see the "right wing" label slapped on everything. In my little world, I've had it happen to me. It's really awful. What does it take to make a person "right wing" these days?"
Well, Prof, it's basically what happens once you take the red pill....
There are individuals who know (in their heart-of-hearts) that their ideas and opinions cannot stand to be scrutinized and defended. So those individuals want to protect their ideas and opinions from scrutiny. "Opposing opinions are too dangerous to be published; they might threaten weak minded people, and convince those weak-minded people that my ideas are wrong." When (and how) did this become a "left wing liberal" point of view? When did the liberals of my youth lose confidence in their opinions and decide that the only way to win an argument was to squelch the opposing point of view? This weakness is not a good look. I think young people are beginning to see this and wonder if leftist ideas are so fundamentally weak that they need to be protected by restrictions on speech that questions the leftist ideas.
As a long-time and prolific commenter, I am in a position to say that Althouse is a moderate Democrat who has been left stranded by the party of today. I can also say that Jim5301 is one of the dumbest pieces of dogshit I have ever encountered on-line. He makes Inga look good by comparison.
"Hillary Clinton's "Stronger Together" is literally what fasces are: the fasces are a bundle of sticks, easy to break individually, hard to break when many are bound together."
At the cost of individual freedom of movement.
EU Corruption has always claimed their cut of the Big Tech loot if an American business is done there. Elon could send them a bill for Spacex communication system they all use in the Ukraine war The USA needs President Trump 2.0 to deal with them. Biden and gang would just get their cut.
(Hint: Hillary Clinton's "Stronger Together" is literally what fasces are: the fasces are a bundle of sticks, easy to break individually, hard to break when many are bound together.)
The next time you watch a speech in the House of Representatives, check out the wall to either side of the Speaker. (reverse of the Mercury dime too)
It's always fun when I'm teaching fascism and where the term comes from, only to end with a Mercury dime being passed around the room and a shot of the Speaker's dais on the screen.
Elon Musk can probably live without the five Norwegians who tweet "I'm on the tram now" once a day, but it's terrifying to watch the fascists take over the Democrat Party, the media, academia, etc. in America -- and their spit-flecked gleeful anticipation of the day when they can further silence and expel their political rivals.
Agreed. Been a transplant here just a smidge before ACLU was”Deep-Thriating” Skokie March down our throats. Can’t see that with the modern ACLU.
Rubin is basically doing performance art now. Her schtick can be best described as a parody of an obviously evil propaganda mouthpiece from a B-movie.
Jen Jen has been threatening to leave Twitter over the $8 charge for a blue check for a week now. It's not hard. Just go to your profile & delete. Shut the Hell up.
And yet TikTok is still not banned from the US. The mote that is Musk owning Twitter cannot compete with the beam of ChiCom Spyware in the eyes of Leftists.
In the modern world, there is only "Right wing" and "moderates".
Jen Rubin is so preposterously over-regarded for some talent or insight that she clearly does not possess. What an absolute babbling idiot. As predictable as tides. I cannot fathom how she earns a living. An uninteresting and unengaging lazy writer with nothing new to say
Ann, that the government has obviously used “independent” social media and blogs to squelch speech from unfavored groups presents a problem. While I absolutely do not want to see your blog go away, there are larger issues. I might hope that you are more worried about that than your own patch, But when one side wants to weaponize speech and restrict it, then maybe a glance at that is in order. Dunno. Not an attorney but it seems to me that there is a bunch of squelching (remember from CB radios from the 70’s) coming from the left.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा