Donald Trump sues Facebook, Google and Twitter

[moonbat]

How are you going to spin this?

I'll take a shot, going by his previous stands.

You have to prove that the bias is against exposing narrative contradicting views by woke idols specifically and not some other reason. If Katie Couric censored RBG, it only proves that Katie Couric censored RBG. I don't know what point you're making with this news item.

[somdcomputerguy]

Although i do think all this political BS should just go away to some other dedicated forum.

[daemonspudguy]

In regards to web providers banning sites like Gab and Parler from being hosted, nothing forces I dunno, HostGator, to do business with anyone. If a hosting service decides that they don't want something on their servers, I believe they should be allowed to ban the people who put that there.

[daemonspudguy]

Although i do think all this political BS should just go away to some other dedicated forum.

Can I use this image in other places?

[somdcomputerguy]

Can I use this image in other places?

You can use it wherever you want. Just don't hotlink to it from here, save a copy of your own. I don't even remember where I got it from.. I've posted it in several places over the years, I haven't gotten any copyright or 'cease & desist' orders from anyone..

[moonbat]

If a hosting service decides that they don't want something on their servers, I believe they should be allowed to ban the people who put that there.

And when hosting providers, payment processors and domain registrars all gang up against a company because of their politics, they can just go build their own separate internet.

Libertarianism sounds fine and dandy until the question of market power and dominance arises.

[Moonchild]

And when hosting providers, payment processors and domain registrars all gang up against a company because of their politics, they can just go build their own separate internet.

There will always be service providers who don't care about the politics of the content.
What you're suggesting is that service providers should be forced to deal with anyone who pays them money without scruples or principles about where they draw the line what they host? I think that's pushing the "libre" envelope quite a bit too hard. Any service provider should have the right to refuse to service anyone. Period.

[daemonspudguy]

Libertarianism sounds fine and dandy until the question of market power and dominance arises.

That's making a false assumption. I actually am an incredibly anti-capitalist person. Specifically, I identify as an anarcho-socialist. I was speaking under the system that we have.

[daemonspudguy]

There will always be service providers who don't care about the politics of the content.
What you're suggesting is that service providers should be forced to deal with anyone who pays them money without scruples or principles about where they draw the line what they host? I think that's pushing the "libre" envelope quite a bit too hard. Any service provider should have the right to refuse to service anyone. Period.

I agree with this. If a provider of something decides someone sucks, they shouldn't have to do business with them.

[moonbat]

What you're suggesting is that service providers should be forced to deal with anyone who pays them money without scruples or principles about where they draw the line what they host?

I'm not prescribing anything here. The current situation is that the very infrastructure of the internet is under the firm control of companies pushing or supporting the 'progressive' lefty views, courtesy being long since infiltrated by these scum, or deciding that pandering to them is good for business. The kind of power and influence they have, often in cahoots with governments is disturbing and there are very few censorship free alternatives left.
This goes beyond just providers, who themselves get targeted at times for supporting 'bigoted' businesses. Sure, one can try to promote a business online while eschewing big tech companies that control the largest audiences and advertising while one's competitors happily make use of them, and remain obscure if not go bankrupt.

That's making a false assumption. I actually am an incredibly anti-capitalist person. Specifically, I identify as an anarcho-socialist. I

I wasn't assuming anything about you, but how totally surprising and unique
Anarcho socialism is an oxymoron.

[Moonchild]

I'm not prescribing anything here.

I didn't say that.
I said you were suggesting it -- now, not directly, mind you, but suggesting by elimination (negative) is just as much suggesting as directly suggesting it (positive).
You're sketching the circumstance that there would be no alternative (except building an independent internet) for service providers than to submit to the politics of "influencing hosting providers, payment processors and domain registrars"; that one would be forced to allow content or clients they would not agree with serving if asked directly. And that's simply not true. Neither is it true that such clients would not have a "place to go to".

[daemonspudguy]

Anarcho socialism is an oxymoron.

Someone not knowing what socialism is? How rare and surprising!
Socialism means the workers control the means of production. Anarchism is the rejection of the state. Anarcho-socialism would create society where everything is organized horizontally instead of vertical and where the workers control the means of labor.

[somdcomputerguy]

Off-topic:

Specifically, I identify..

[Tharthan]

how totally surprising and unique

Indeed. I, too, roll my eyes and sigh when people spout that silliness.

Don't worry. Trends come and go. Eventually, people will move on and hyper-fixate on something else.

Until then, we will hear the same old recycled claims and arguments that some annoying people here in the United States almost a hundred years ago shouted about on the streets in certain big cities and garnered some level of support back then amongst a segment of the populace in those places, but then mostly died out over time as people came to realise how foolish it was.

Sadly, the proponents of the silliness love to repackage their political snake oil in a different way each generation in an effort to get people of a new generation to buy into it. For the moment, the repackaging effort has had some level of success amongst a segment of the populace, and more particularly amongst a percentage of youths.

We just have to wait for it to pass. Can't tell you how long that will take, but it will happen eventually.

[daemonspudguy]

I don't really try to convince people to join my side where I live. I can't. I live in Southeastern Ohio, and a lot of the people here still think Trump won and will be president again any day now.

[moonbat]

I don't really try to convince people to join my side

You would better serve yourself to pick up a text on basic economics instead of going over Marxism with a fine toothed comb, or childishly blaming 'capitalism' for problems largely created by government regulation and interference. Capitalism is not a prescriptive philosophy that will lead to utopia if followed, unlike the proffered alternatives which have repeatedly disastrously failed from their refusal to understand and work with basic human nature which involves self interest and care for people chosen by oneself (as opposed to being forced to cater to others via taxation or other form of coercion). People voluntarily helping others through charity has nothing to do with socialism, for starters. (As some are even wont to claim Jesus was a socialist).

People born after 1990 act as though they've made some big discovery with regard to socialism, completely ignoring its ignominious history wherever it has been tried. 'But that was not true socialism'. Yeah, sure, tell that to each one of those utopian dictators that they were wrong and should've consulted a wise millennial on how to go about it

[daemonspudguy]

People voluntarily helping others through charity has nothing to do with socialism, for starters.

Who claimed it does?

But that was not true socialism'. Yeah, sure, tell that to each one of those utopian dictators that they were wrong and should've consulted a wise millennial on how to go about it

I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in dictatorships or the state in general.

I'm also not a Marxist, I don't know why you're acting as if I am. I don't consider socialism to simply be "the transition state to communism". I consider it an economic system in it's own right.

[daemonspudguy]

What you're suggesting is that service providers should be forced to deal with anyone who pays them money without scruples or principles about where they draw the line what they host?

I'm not prescribing anything here. The current situation is that the very infrastructure of the internet is under the firm control of companies pushing or supporting the 'progressive' lefty views, courtesy being long since infiltrated by these scum, or deciding that pandering to them is good for business. The kind of power and influence they have, often in cahoots with governments is disturbing and there are very few censorship free alternatives left.
This goes beyond just providers, who themselves get targeted at times for supporting 'bigoted' businesses. Sure, one can try to promote a business online while eschewing big tech companies that control the largest audiences and advertising while one's competitors happily make use of them, and remain obscure if not go bankrupt.

What the fuck does this even mean? This is a nonsense post, and sounds a little conspiratorial and deranged.

[Moonchild]

I probably shouldn't get myself involved here, but I do have something to say:

I don't consider socialism to simply be "the transition state to communism".

I think you need to get your terms straight before you apply them as a self-label. FYI: the transition state to socialism is communism; you have it backwards. If you truly believe in socialism (the utopian kind where everything is defined and executed by the people as a whole) then you are very much a Marxist.
Also, your rejection of the state is diametrically opposed to the foundation of communism where the transition state towards socialism absolutely requires one to unequivocally submit to the state in order to build the socialist framework before it has to relent it to the people when complete. You can't jump from one extreme to the other without that transition.

[daemonspudguy]

The definition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Also, this is literally the first time I have ever heard of anyone claiming that communism is the transition state to socialism. Everyone else says the opposite, including Karl Marx himself.