SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by c0lo
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/the-internet-doesnt-have-to-be-awful/618079/
I... simply can't summarize it. I can tease with some selections, but I won't.
It's a 20mins or more reading (if you don't just want to tick a box) and longer to digest it and let the things settle in their place.
The Atlantic - How to Put Out Democracy’s Dumpster Fire
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 152 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1
(2)
1
(2)
Your step will soil many countries.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 16 2021, @08:07PM (13 children)
Kyle Rittenhouse was literally attacked for putting out a dumpster fire. And, I mean literally, quite literally. If you're putting out dumpster fires, you better carry an AR-15.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @08:44PM (3 children)
The little shithead murdered two people cuz he is a scared angry little coward spurred on by white supremacists that didn't want to put their own freedom on the line. For evidence search for the video of him sucker punching a girl.
He should rot in prison for the rest of his life as a warning to you and yours. And so your freefees aren't hurt anyone setting fire or damaging a business should also be locked up comensurate with their crimes. You can't cry "rule of law" only when minorities are being harmed, that would make you an R word.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @09:39PM (1 child)
Prepare to be disappointed.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @10:23PM
Oh I'm always prepared, righties never punish their white supremacists.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 17 2021, @12:45AM
Kyle harmed no minorities, dumbass. He shot only privileged white fucks.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 16 2021, @09:36PM (8 children)
FTFY.
See? If lies like this can get foothold in the feeble-minded like our own idiot Runaway, and then amplified by a clickbaiting algorithm, we end up with people storming the Capitol Building, and Powne3d Bois thinking they are defending Western Civilization. So this is how it starts. One lone idiot passing on the dank (criminal) meme, and spreading due to the nature of the commercial internets. This gives the crazy and uneducated (like our Runaway, here) the false impression that they are the majority, and incites them to violence. I oppose censorship. What we need to bring back is the stocks [wikipedia.org], public humiliation, shaming and shunning.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 17 2021, @12:48AM (7 children)
Kyle shot no one who wasn't already attacking him.
You might say that all three of those fools won their well-earned Darwin awards.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 17 2021, @12:52AM (6 children)
Or, that like a Prong Boy, he went there looking for an opportunity to kill, like the most sociopathic mercenaries and pathetics teenage boys.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 17 2021, @01:05AM (5 children)
If that be true, why did Kyle carry a first aid kit, and TREAT INJURED PROTESTERS????
You're about as sharp as a bowling ball. It comes from reading too many extreme left news sites.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 17 2021, @01:29AM (4 children)
Like you, he is a boy coward who went looking for trouble, and an excuse to kill. A teenage Trump moron, like yourself. So go back to linking white surpremacists enemies of America in your journal, Runaway1956, traitor to America!
Real heros save lives, they don't seek to take them. Medicins sans Frontiers, brave people, who are liberal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 17 2021, @02:01AM (3 children)
Well, you got one thing right. Doctors Without Borders are brave people.
I prefer my heroes to save lives, and also be prepared to defend their own lives, as well as the lives of their patients. If that means gunning down a madman or three, so be it. #FreeKyle
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 17 2021, @03:09AM (2 children)
Has it ever occurred to you, my intellectually challenged Arkie, that Kyle was the madman?? Defending murderers is not a good way to go, post Trump.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 17 2021, @04:24AM (1 child)
The madmen were burning down the city. If you can justify burning businesses, and gutting the city or the city's livelihood, then you are the madman as well. The rioters didn't care who got hurt, who got killed, who might go hungry, or anything else. They were out to destroy a city, or to destroy as much of it as they could. #freekyle - an American hero who isn't afraid to gun down mad dogs in the street.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 17 2021, @09:55AM
Let's just agree to leave the Kenosha Police Dept. out of this, OK?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @08:34PM (21 children)
The rightwing users commenting on this story are the very same that wanted to repeal Section 230 protections that would have had very obvious and very instant ramifications for websites everywhere, including Soylent News. They wanted to violate Constitutional rights of free speech for businesses they didn't like. There was some small bits of truth to the conservative complaints, and the possibility of a discussion about how to fix the problem of centralized communications monopolies. They chose a short termed punitive option that would not have the results they desired.
Now we have this article, offering far from perfect solutions, but because it comes from a "liberal" outlet the reactions are suspicion and vitriol with zero discussion. It is all bad they say, substituting their paranoid fantasies for what is being said. I have no problem with people raising concerns, but that doesn't happen anymore. The people that cry censorship and identity politics are the very ones engaging in such. Ideological purity and punishment for outgroups, all under the disguise of freedom.
Logic and reason have fled, and propaganda now rules the conservative wing of America. The saddest part is the angry people don't realize it and repeat the lies of their leaders blaming everyone else for conservative policies and actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @09:13PM (8 children)
You're missing the fundamental divide.
Conservatives: Huge social media is censoring too much. Let's get rid of them.
People who claim to be liberals: Huge social media isn't censoring enough. Let's get rid of them.
They reach similar conclusions, but with radically different motivations. This article starts with the baseline view that huge social media sites are not censoring enough, and works upwards from there. The response has nothing to do with the outlet, and everything to do with the horrible ideas being proposed, unless you are one of the sorts of people who has been convinced that censorship is just awesome.
---
To gain some degree of empathy, simply swap the biases involved. Imagine we're in the USA 1980s, with the Moral Majority being the fascists. And social media companies happened to be in bed with these groups. And so they actively and visibly, though inconsistently, continue to censor individuals, tags, and so on that run contrary to the views and values of the Moral Majority. And so now a paper came out suggesting a way to solve the problem of social media. That problem? Well of course it's that too many people are saying things that don't fit the target narrative of the Moral Majority. It's unlikely you're going to respond positively to this notion.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @10:21PM (7 children)
All you did was make everyone realize you have terrible reading comprehension and a political axe to grind.
I'm getting alot of table pounding vibes here, the article specifically says censorship is a bad idea and provides some possible alternatives. You just want to be angry and scream CENSORSHIP when no one is saying that.
By the law of Gaslight Qonstruct Project we see that you are the real fascist drooling for dictatorship so you can make all the bad people go away with their uncomfortable letters of the alphabet. Conservatives always blame liberals for the things conservatives want and are doing. Pedophiles? Liberals punish them, Conservatives protect and vote them back in! You lot get sicker every year, tend to your own garden pal, once it stops rotting we'll be here to listen to any cogent thoughts you have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @11:08PM (3 children)
LOL... [merriam-webster.com]
Notice how it isn't described as a "mostly peaceful lurid crisis"? No mention of the Russian Collusion bullshit or the "systemic racism" conspiracy perpetuated by BLM (but unsupported by facts). [urbandictionary.com] Lies orchestrated and perpetuated by social elites are commonly called "propaganda". The article makes no good faith attempt at unraveling what is happening because that would require further admissions of guilt. [time.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16 2021, @11:22PM
Ah yes, the two things readily apparent to any non-moron. Good job moron, you outed yerself ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2021, @12:05AM (1 child)
US intelligence report says Russia attempted to interfere in 2020 election with goal of 'denigrating ' Biden. [soylentnews.org]
Now, tell us all about the antifa, AC!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2021, @12:39AM
The media doing their job would have kept him from power. You know, I'm warming to the idea of the article. How do we extinguish "democracy's dumper fire"? We get rid of the likes of Twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC and Democrat donor Laurene Jobs publication "The Atlantic".
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday March 16 2021, @11:46PM (2 children)
Bullshit. It's just different sorts of censorship. Just imagine what happens when you're on the wrong end of the gun - big social media hiding your opinions instead of the bad guys because some political operatives deemed your opinions "disinformation". After all, power shifts every few years. Just because your tribe is in the ascendancy today doesn't keep some Trump-like power from being in charge tomorrow.
Don't give them that power.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2021, @05:51PM (1 child)
Jesus you're dumb. The companies already have that power, and you're the one making things tribal you low watt bulb. You're probably the same kind of person that says "gun regulations? they're taking our guns!" Or "you can't make me wear a mask in your store it is against my Constitutional rights!"
lulz
He lost, get over it ;-)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 18 2021, @01:36AM
As mandated by China and the EU. You should pull your head out of your ass. We're already partway into the mess advocated by this article.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 17 2021, @05:18AM
"Now rules?" It's been the case since at least Reagan.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 17 2021, @05:28AM (4 children)
Repealing section 230 is stupid. The entire CDA has to go. Nobody has the right to regulate internet content. For internet service all bets are off, we have to demand common carrier regs on the ISPs so that anyone who wants a platform can roll and serve their own
The article is a bullshit attempt to make censorship look all warm and fuzzy, it's just lipstick on the pig so that only official lies can be transmitted
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 17 2021, @08:28AM (3 children)
What about the algorithms that feed your perceptive experience of the internet content?
Oh, where thus is the "censorship by the crowd, just as tyrannical as any other" [soylentnews.org] left?
Is it included in the "we have to demand" or is it swept aside under the cognitive dissonance rug?
Maybe one is required to master the DoubleThink to be so damn'd cocky sure the one holds The True Solution?
(not saying common carrier reg is bad or good. I'm just pointing the cognitive dissonance and the delusion that there is always a good simple solution for any complex problem. Or at least for the "democracy dumpster fire" one).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2021, @08:50AM (1 child)
Do you not see what you're saying? One solution is "I can do whatever I want, and so can you." The other is "I can do whatever I want, and you have to do the same." When people seek freedom, you are not required to participate in such. If you want to view the world through the lens of AlgorithmicallyCensoredInternet.com then there would be nothing stopping you from such. The problem emerges when you want to force others to also participate in that "experience."
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 17 2021, @09:00AM
One could wish this is problem-free. We're seeing the effects today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 17 2021, @05:02PM
You are so far off base. We have to make internet service open to everyone without restrictions aside from agreed upon bandwidth. Are you trying to tell me that's censorship?? If so, you are definitely wack...
Make the ISPs provide a dumb pipe. You can purchase whatever filtering algorithm you want for your connection. You shall not apply it to anybody else's, unless they ask.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2021, @07:27AM (1 child)
I find it intriguing that the "rightwing users" commenting critically on the article are actually referencing the article and discussing it. Instead of offering compelling arguments showing that the more skeptical interpretations of the article are flawed, you instead attack people - and claim that logic and reason have fled *them*. I do hope you understand the irony.
And as an aside I am one of those users quite skeptical of this article, and I'm by no means "rightwing", however I am vehemently against fascism, against censorship, and against authoritarianism. And in contemporary times that leads me to increasingly butting heads with people who claim to be liberals. Remember, my friend, that though you may indeed hold liberal ideas in your mind - that does not prevent you from sliding towards fascism.
This [wikipedia.org] is the fascist manifesto which was used as the declaration of the political stance of the Fasci. It's about as liberal as you can get. Fascism itself is even liberal in its name's symbology. Fascio is an Italian word meaning a sheath or a bundle of sticks. The idea was that individual each stick is weak and fragile, but by working as a whole - everybody becomes much stronger than the sum of the parts. The reason they are labeled fascists is because of how they began to behave - censoring, attacking, and ultimately aiming to destroy any and all ideology besides their own. No doubt they of course comparably demonized their victims and felt they would undoubtedly go down on "the right side of history." And what side of history did they end up on? Their party's name is now a political pejorative in more than a dozen languages. And I suspect we will find our current "liberal" political inclinings will end up sharing a similar fate.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18 2021, @12:37AM
There's nothing liberal about little-big-head's fascism, it's a collectivist ideology with roots in anarcho-syndicalism. If you want to know why so called "liberals" hold similar views, it's because leftists perverted individualistic ideology with collectivist rhetoric. The left never met an "oppressed group" they wouldn't cynically leverage to gain power. It was on the left side of the idle where the trick was learned, culminating in former Marxist Mussolini promising the Italian people "Social Justice" under Fascism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 17 2021, @03:19PM (3 children)
You made the assertion, now prove it. I see fusty has registered opposition to Section 230. Presumably, he's rightwing in your eyes. So that's technically one user. Where are the rest?
"Zero discussion"? Not what happened [soylentnews.org]. In that link, I quote four large paragraphs with the problems I discussed.
Cool story, bro. But not what actually happened. Why is spinning tall tales more important to you than reality? I have my opinion [soylentnews.org] on that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2021, @06:11PM (1 child)
Actually logic and reason have fled, nothing you quoted in there is about applying censorship. I do see talk about regulating the algorithms that companies are already implementing, and the article specifically says to make the algorithms transparent so users can select how their feeds are filtered. You rightwingers are so far off into lala land.
You are one of the worst users around here, actively engaging in bad faith arguments and refusing to even review evidence at times because you have made up your mind and no one will change that! Super duper cool story bruh, tell me another lie about how factual and unbiased you are, tell it to me baby!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 18 2021, @01:19AM
Good thing I bolded the stuff that is about applying censorship. Let's review so you can get a clue:
First example of censorship - this one is live BTW. The "new ranking system" suppresses (that is what "demote" means) certain news sources. That's censorship.
The authors of the article are calling for this censorship scheme to be used all the time, not just during the last election cycle.
An example of a hypothetical government-enforced censorship. "Acts of terrorism" is a pretty flexible term.
And the scheme would make social media companies liable for allowing such speech. A stick to enforce that censorship. The authors of the article, of course, are all for it.
Let us not forget the creepy shit the European governments are pulling. What sort of action "must be taken"? Censorship for starters. Maybe even imprisoning people for speechcrime. They already do some of that today.
Sorry, I'm not that gullible. There are two obvious problems with your statement. First, how do you know the algorithm that is transparent is the algorithm you are running? It's way too easy to feign transparency. Second, what happens when people do the opposite of what the algorithm is supposed to encourage? My bet is that option to seek "disinformation" will be disabled, probably covertly.
Perhaps, but notice that didn't happen here! You ended being the one arguing in bad faith without evidence or reasoning!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday March 17 2021, @07:05PM
Not exactly. My opposition is to the CDA. As long as that remains on the books, Section 230 is absolutely necessary. Do people see the demand for an open internet as "right wing"? That's pretty weird... But the pro-censorship people don't hesitate to make shit up, so I guess anything goes...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @06:20AM (3 children)
I'll reference by paragraphs, rather than direct quotes, owing to the limitations of soylentnews. I include quoted paragraphs from other sources in this count, but not headings.
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are a brief survey of Tocqueville's observations on american associations and how they shaped cooperative approaches to achievement. They mostly lead into paragraph 6 which bemoans the deterioration of civil society, without really understanding why that happened, or what replaced it, and how, nor why parts of it remain active and healthy. It particularly doesn't make the case that civil society is most moribund inside dense cities, while in rural areas things like grange associations, churches and local government activities are alive and well.
In other words, the author starts out showing us a vast blind spot in her bubble; a blind spot from which she chooses to describe the american online experience as lonely and personalised. For all the people who have found help, found love or found jobs online, I can only say: "Speak for yourself."
But she continues to speak for all of us, from inside her lonely, personalised internet bunker. Let's dive in.
Paragraph 7 teases the idea of a replacement, that would, by her standards, be better.
8 is full of emotive language, ill-supported. "nightmarish inversion of the Tocquevillian dream, a new sort of wilderness", "anomie and alienation" and so on. She's selling the idea that this is all very bad, no good, nasty. She paints the online activity and experience of americans as being like a set of mobs shrieking at each other. Even if it may be true for some, she makes no mention of others, or of broader experiences. This says more about her than about americans at large.
9 She says that the rules are set by for-profit companies. But this is a weasely oversimplification. Which rules? She talks about algorithms, but what about CoCs and T&Cs? Not a work. Instead she continues her horrorshow about how american feel powerless.
10 Here she leaps to her ill-supported lemma: "In this new wilderness, democracy is becoming impossible." Not only is this a slippery slope argument of gigantic proportions, it also makes no effort to differentiate cause and effect. Are people disagreeing because they're divided by external forces, or were they already divided, and the forces are demonstrating this? She gives us no way to tell the difference, and it doesn't suit her argument to raise the possibility.
11 is a quote, but not helpful.
12 She makes much of the power and influence of autocrats, but decides that we are run by oligarchs from Silicon Valley, rather than "our democratic values of openness, accountability, and respect for human rights" - ironic, if you consider her later position.
13 J.P. Barlow quote here for supporting the ideal of the dream. What dream?
14 She says that Barlow sounds quaint. Maybe to her. Presumably she wants her audience to nod along. Again, she should speak for herself.
15 She says that Trump's lame duck period post-election was an interregnum. ... an american should know better. Mostly she assumes that the commercial platforms benefited from the fuss. Dubious, at best.
16 Mostly speculation about what Facebook could or would have done. No hard answers, because Facebook won't give any.
17 Here she begs the question, and presumes that commercial platforms can fix things. No word on alternatives such as the fediverse. Instead she claims that it's all about the benjamins, and addictive interfaces without also considering the ramifications of when people get sick of Facebook's newsfeed manipulation - something that's happening all the time.
18 Here she peripherally admits that people have always been partisan (apparently someone told her about yellow journalism) but somehow now is different, when people have more avenues for information rather than fewer. Case not proven.
19 Some hand-waving descriptions of surveillance capitalism (i.e. selling eyeballs). And she conflates online discussion with automated tracking of things like parking tickets, as per China's social credit, claiming that people online are effectively powerless. Again, low on evidence, high on bald assertions.
20 Here she says that alternatives are possible, and while mentioning a couple, she dashes off the Creative Commons and Wikipedia (having the effrontery to call it mostly unbiased, in the light of recent developments) but ignores the open options still around, for anybody who cares. That she ignores that people don't care, as well, is also telling. This would argue that the problem is a broad-based human one, but she's not aiming for that.
21 Now she complains about walled gardens, as if PCs and editors vanished.
22 Now she complains about the gilded age, and wants to draw a parallel, lionising Teddy Roosevelt's early populist progressivism.
23 Parallel continues.
24 Algorithms can have wicked consequences ... depending on what you feed them, and do with the output. For this reason, she proposes: "These ideas represent the beginning of an understanding of just how different internet regulation will need to be from anything we have tried previously." -- in essence, trying to say that algorithms should be regulated so as to support only outcomes or content that suit the tastes of progressive thinkers. She makes no mention whatever of the constitutional problems (first, fourth, fifth amendments immediately involved).
25 She argues that regulating algorithms avoids the problem of a Section 230 deletion, ignoring that her proposal amounts to pre-emptive censorship. This is not better.
26 She appeals to the example of other countries. Again, she ignores the constitutional implications in the USA. Why? Either she's ignorant, doesn't think that they matter, or is disingenuously ignoring something rather fatal to her plan.
27 She admits that it's a pipe dream, but then goes for Fukuyama's proposal of ... siloed editorial agents. How this would be better, she glosses over.
28 A largely irrelevant quote.
29 Now we go straight from science fiction, to science fantasy. She compares algorithms to gut flora, completely ignoring that the algorithms are largely deterministic, but that in a complex environment, complex interactions have chaotic consequences.
30 A pipe dream about analysing and testing algorithms used by companies, as if they didn't change regularly, or have wide-open, readily tweakable parameters. Her monumental ignorance is clearly on display.
31 Here she presumes that this is linked to the health of american democracy. This assertion is just not supported by the foregoing. There are more holes in her argument before than in the plots of most Marvel movies. Her proposals about things like the Rohingya controlling how Facebook does things for their benefit is not examined, say, in the light of how the government of Bangladesh might feel about the same questions. Who decides when there are conflicting needs? No explanation given.
32 complains that we need dynamic regulation (i.e. not set forth by law; delegated by lawgivers to unelected bureaucrats) to solve the problem. She complains that breaking up the companies won't solve the problem (without substantial evidence) and makes no effort to actually pick apart the economic argument behind doing so, presuming that an army of gnomes would collaboratively create the same problem as the few giants we currently have.
33 She refers now to an analogy of environmental regulation, utterly ignoring how different data services can coexist in complete parallel, and be created and deleted in ways that rivers and mountains can not. Of course, ecological law has also been such a poster-child for bureaucratically-induced paralysis, that it's possibly the worst available parallel.
34-35 An analogy with radio - once more, ignoring the foundational differences.
36 John Reith and the early history of the BBC.
37 Hey! We could have nonprofit public spaces! Like ... the ones that already exist. Except that these would be different! Somehow!
38 The BBC and Elks Club. Civil society. Boring internet. And this will take the world by storm because .... *answer not given*
39 Front porch forum. Vermont. Open discussion. A bulletin board with a delay, and a mandatory real names policy.
40 What we need is: a TAX! That'll help us build all the good things. Because this time will be different.
41-43 Polis in Taiwan. And it could sometimes result in agreement. Doesn't seem to have resulted in that where it was invented: Seattle.
44 Anonymity is good! Except when it promotes #stopthesteal.
45 OK, OK, anonymity is not so great, so how about pseudonymity. Because we must all be people. (Nobody told her about deanonymisation technology, clearly.)
46 Whaddyaknow? The proportion of people who actually want this is very low. No shit, Sherlock.
47 Nothing online is perfect, everyone has gripes.
48 Conflating people who didn't trust the election with QAnon (again), while saying that ... people are talking about this. We know they are. This paragraph should have been deleted.
49 Hand-waving about rearchitecting the "internet", by which she seems to mean some platforms on it.
50 Content-free dreaming, with added direct-democracy sprinkles.
51-52 She tries to define human rights online, in terms of ... the owners of services not controlling those services, in a nutshell. Why the hell would they bother, rather than doing something else? Question not asked, let alone answered. And some flat-out fantasy about data control.
53 Because confederation was replaced with constitutional federation, we can rebuilt the internet. Simile stretched past breaking-point.
54 Happy optimism prevails!
This piece is a load of horseshit. She doesn't understand how anything works, doesn't understand the limitations of trans-border communications, doesn't understand the economics behind it, and still seems to think that she can make a case for anything.
More to follow.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @06:26AM (2 children)
Her finest moments are when she admitted that people don't seem to want what she likes, don't behave how she likes, and only a narrow minority are likely to participate, let alone comply with her vision (such as it is). For her proposals to actually work she'd need:
1) Massively intrusive legislation
2) Massive delegation of powers to bureaucracy
3) More taxes (because let's face it, redirecting current funds ain't how DC does it)
4) Outlawing all the other things that people might want to do, because sure as shit they will establish their own places, right Gab?
First amendment? I'm sure she's heard of it. But for her to get what she wants, she'd have to kick it out. Fourth amendment too, for sure, and quite likely have problems with the fifth, not to mention the tenth and the fourteenth.
This is not a high quality piece of work. It's in no way scholarly. It's not even well-informed.
This journal has really cratered my opinion of c0lo for being stupid enough to actually swallow this bullshit.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @07:41PM (1 child)
Poir fascists don't like when peoole criticize them. Can you belueve they chose a NY elitist beholden to Putin as their gOd eMpErOr? I know, so crazy! Din't worry bud, 2024 revenge tour amirite??? Lololol
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @08:51PM
While she's certainly no friend of civil liberties, I think that describing her as a fascist is a little harsh. I don't really get the impression that she's aiming for a command economy or anything like it.