SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arik (4543)
The Fine Print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Friday February 26, 21
05:50 AM
From the "Streisand Effect, Motherfugger!" Dept.
A few days ago, the GrayZone reported "Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal"
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/
Journalism being frowned upon, this somewhat unsurprising exposé drew yet another attempt at big tech censorship. Twitter slapped a warning that the material 'may have been obtained through hacking.'
Scary haxx0rs do not share!!!!
It's backfired nicely though, to the point that even the boneheads at twitter realised it was counterproductive and withdrew the warning.
Too late, Ms Streisand! A whole new generation just encountered journalism for the first time, and they like it.
A few days ago, the GrayZone reported "Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal"
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/
Journalism being frowned upon, this somewhat unsurprising exposé drew yet another attempt at big tech censorship. Twitter slapped a warning that the material 'may have been obtained through hacking.'
Scary haxx0rs do not share!!!!
It's backfired nicely though, to the point that even the boneheads at twitter realised it was counterproductive and withdrew the warning.
Too late, Ms Streisand! A whole new generation just encountered journalism for the first time, and they like it.
Thursday January 28, 21
03:33 AM
Following up on the previous entry, some good discussions actually resulted.
When the poor white folks and the poor black folks managed to get past the propaganda they were fed from childhood, and unite against the real enemy.
Another crappy link, some more transcript of the most important part (but listen to the further explanation:)
https://youtu.be/GcPBnsOe_ao?t=20
<Rev Annie Chambers>I don't know, what have I told you about the story of me and the Klu Klux Klans? But they just as bad off as we is. And somebody (needed to) shake them! (motions with her hands, grabbing a throat and shaking the neck.) And say hey look! You ain't got a damn thing! I don't need you to like me as an individual if you don't wanna but you ass starvin' too!"</rev>
They're always trying to divide us. And the reason is obvious.
That gets them guaranteed profits, day after day, week after week, moon after moon.
They are the DNC and the RNC both and pretty nearly equally. I don't agree with anyone completely. I even disagree with Daryl Davis, and even in this podcast.
But as much as I disagree with him, I'd rather have him for President than anyone that's actually set in that office since I was born.
Humans can disagree. Vampires can only demand obedience.
When the poor white folks and the poor black folks managed to get past the propaganda they were fed from childhood, and unite against the real enemy.
Another crappy link, some more transcript of the most important part (but listen to the further explanation:)
https://youtu.be/GcPBnsOe_ao?t=20
<Rev Annie Chambers>I don't know, what have I told you about the story of me and the Klu Klux Klans? But they just as bad off as we is. And somebody (needed to) shake them! (motions with her hands, grabbing a throat and shaking the neck.) And say hey look! You ain't got a damn thing! I don't need you to like me as an individual if you don't wanna but you ass starvin' too!"</rev>
They're always trying to divide us. And the reason is obvious.
That gets them guaranteed profits, day after day, week after week, moon after moon.
They are the DNC and the RNC both and pretty nearly equally. I don't agree with anyone completely. I even disagree with Daryl Davis, and even in this podcast.
But as much as I disagree with him, I'd rather have him for President than anyone that's actually set in that office since I was born.
Humans can disagree. Vampires can only demand obedience.
Monday January 25, 21
07:54 AM
So after several weeks of winter torpor, I felt inspired today to post a couple of updates.
First, BIDEN does something good!
Just as with all prior Presidents, I expect to spend more time roasting him than praising him - but I will still make a point to support him when he's right.
Even when he's as little as half right.
A number of sources are currently reporting that Biden will drop Trump's ban on transpersons in the military.
Now, this is about exactly half right. It's absolutely wrong that the state doesn't give a damn how queer someone is when they're demanding money to pay for these things, but when they go to hire people with that payroll all of a sudden they have these weird standards to make sure we can't get any of those jobs. It's just unfair, and everyone can see that.
It's also about exactly half wrong. Because if there's one thing that would be clearly and absolutely worse than taxing transpeople while refusing to hire them; one thing that just takes the oppression to a new level entirely; it would be paying them to go around the world and murder transpeople (and others) for nonsense crimes such as having been born outside our borders, or asking uncomfortable questions of the authorities in our non-ally "allies" like Saudi Arabia.
But, yes, lacking a real improvement in US foreign policy, simply allowing transgender people in the military (without demanding that they be in-role 24/7 as a straight cisgendered warrior) is, in my evaluation, better than excluding them simply for being transgendered. Biden, you did something sort of good. You have already exceeded my expectations in that way, and I do salute you!
And on to the second;
BOOGALOO BOIS!
I'll confess, if I were cutting edge I'd have been on this a year or more ago. I was only vaguely aware, at the time, of the mystery. Who are these boogaloo bois that have the MSM and the tech companies and the state actors that are essentially their bum bois in a tizzy?
Well I had a trail to the chans, and I got some ideas there, but of course anyone can say anything on the chans. And they're post-september, I'm pre-september, I'm never completely sure I understood anything I read there. But it was clearly a mix - earnest boogaloo boys and committed trolls. Only which was which?
And then the chans got shut down anyway, and I didn't mirror any of this stuff, so do I even remember it anyway? I'll leave that question for those that are fans of the Matrix to ponder.
A half a memory of an anonymous post is nothing. So I never really tried to stick up for them or defend them, more than simply pointing out the obvious. The name calls to mind COMBAT! One of ICE-Ts first real paychecks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsaA903oxvc
But all these people screaming that it was just a gloss for helter skelter (both the Beatles and Manson consistently denied they ever intended the interpretation the press gave that phrase, by the way, but I'll reserve that for another story.)
What? Really? I suppose that's possible. People are stupid, and venal, and narcissistic, and we haven't even gotten to the worst ones yet, so possible. But doubtful. With no further info, no contact with any of the people in question, there wasn't really anything to say.
But Jimmy Dore, bless his blowhard parody of a soul, he just found a real Boogaloo Boy. And did an interview.
Shouldn't be surprised if he finally does get disappeared; but please watch it while it's up. I'll link it skipped ahead past his lame old man intro, back it up if you are as fond of him as I am and even enjoy that part. I'll transcribe a bit of the most important part upfront to go with the link, so if you skip back you'll have to wait a bit for my transcript to sync.
<Jimmy D>Well let's play a little bit of it shall we?
<cuts to clip>
<Boogaloo Speaker>"BLM, Antifa, Boogaloo, and right-wing militias; they are the antibodies; not the disease that is destroying our country. The disease is a country run by two corrupt political parties that do not care about you, so deeply incestuous with the corporations that they are indistinguishable from each other. A government that spent 6 months debating whether to give their own people $600, but only 24 hours unanimously agreeing to give billions of dollars to foreign tyrannical governments and corporations. A government that has bombed villages overseas my entire life; for my supposed safety here. This is a call for unity. "
https://youtu.be/5ZMB9052rEs?t=202
First, BIDEN does something good!
Just as with all prior Presidents, I expect to spend more time roasting him than praising him - but I will still make a point to support him when he's right.
Even when he's as little as half right.
A number of sources are currently reporting that Biden will drop Trump's ban on transpersons in the military.
Now, this is about exactly half right. It's absolutely wrong that the state doesn't give a damn how queer someone is when they're demanding money to pay for these things, but when they go to hire people with that payroll all of a sudden they have these weird standards to make sure we can't get any of those jobs. It's just unfair, and everyone can see that.
It's also about exactly half wrong. Because if there's one thing that would be clearly and absolutely worse than taxing transpeople while refusing to hire them; one thing that just takes the oppression to a new level entirely; it would be paying them to go around the world and murder transpeople (and others) for nonsense crimes such as having been born outside our borders, or asking uncomfortable questions of the authorities in our non-ally "allies" like Saudi Arabia.
But, yes, lacking a real improvement in US foreign policy, simply allowing transgender people in the military (without demanding that they be in-role 24/7 as a straight cisgendered warrior) is, in my evaluation, better than excluding them simply for being transgendered. Biden, you did something sort of good. You have already exceeded my expectations in that way, and I do salute you!
And on to the second;
BOOGALOO BOIS!
I'll confess, if I were cutting edge I'd have been on this a year or more ago. I was only vaguely aware, at the time, of the mystery. Who are these boogaloo bois that have the MSM and the tech companies and the state actors that are essentially their bum bois in a tizzy?
Well I had a trail to the chans, and I got some ideas there, but of course anyone can say anything on the chans. And they're post-september, I'm pre-september, I'm never completely sure I understood anything I read there. But it was clearly a mix - earnest boogaloo boys and committed trolls. Only which was which?
And then the chans got shut down anyway, and I didn't mirror any of this stuff, so do I even remember it anyway? I'll leave that question for those that are fans of the Matrix to ponder.
A half a memory of an anonymous post is nothing. So I never really tried to stick up for them or defend them, more than simply pointing out the obvious. The name calls to mind COMBAT! One of ICE-Ts first real paychecks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsaA903oxvc
But all these people screaming that it was just a gloss for helter skelter (both the Beatles and Manson consistently denied they ever intended the interpretation the press gave that phrase, by the way, but I'll reserve that for another story.)
What? Really? I suppose that's possible. People are stupid, and venal, and narcissistic, and we haven't even gotten to the worst ones yet, so possible. But doubtful. With no further info, no contact with any of the people in question, there wasn't really anything to say.
But Jimmy Dore, bless his blowhard parody of a soul, he just found a real Boogaloo Boy. And did an interview.
Shouldn't be surprised if he finally does get disappeared; but please watch it while it's up. I'll link it skipped ahead past his lame old man intro, back it up if you are as fond of him as I am and even enjoy that part. I'll transcribe a bit of the most important part upfront to go with the link, so if you skip back you'll have to wait a bit for my transcript to sync.
<Jimmy D>Well let's play a little bit of it shall we?
<cuts to clip>
<Boogaloo Speaker>"BLM, Antifa, Boogaloo, and right-wing militias; they are the antibodies; not the disease that is destroying our country. The disease is a country run by two corrupt political parties that do not care about you, so deeply incestuous with the corporations that they are indistinguishable from each other. A government that spent 6 months debating whether to give their own people $600, but only 24 hours unanimously agreeing to give billions of dollars to foreign tyrannical governments and corporations. A government that has bombed villages overseas my entire life; for my supposed safety here. This is a call for unity. "
https://youtu.be/5ZMB9052rEs?t=202
Wednesday October 28, 20
04:41 AM
I could probably make this a poll if I knew what I was doing?
But it's fine, I prefer to poll people that are motivated enough to reply.
Voted yet? For whom, if you don't mind saying? Why? If you haven't, why not? Do you plan to vote still? What are your local rules/work restrictions etc. that might make it difficult for you to vote and/or explain why you haven't voted yet though you plan to do so?
Of course all questions are optional but answer at least one of them or don't post, please. If you don't want to answer a question at least try to tell us something about why you wouldn't want to answer.
I'll reply with my own answers shortly.
But it's fine, I prefer to poll people that are motivated enough to reply.
Voted yet? For whom, if you don't mind saying? Why? If you haven't, why not? Do you plan to vote still? What are your local rules/work restrictions etc. that might make it difficult for you to vote and/or explain why you haven't voted yet though you plan to do so?
Of course all questions are optional but answer at least one of them or don't post, please. If you don't want to answer a question at least try to tell us something about why you wouldn't want to answer.
I'll reply with my own answers shortly.
Friday October 16, 20
12:32 AM
For the first time ever (aside from that time Ron Paul ran as a Republican... and yeah that other time too) I am forced to endorse a Republican.
With a crapital 'R' yeah. I know. I just spit up a little, in the back of my throat, as I write this.
Anyhow, I digress. Short and sweet. If you're in Cheshire County New Hampshire, please vote for Aria Dimezzo for Sheriff.
She's just crazy enough to do some good. Please give her a chance.
https://aria4sheriff.com/
With a crapital 'R' yeah. I know. I just spit up a little, in the back of my throat, as I write this.
Anyhow, I digress. Short and sweet. If you're in Cheshire County New Hampshire, please vote for Aria Dimezzo for Sheriff.
She's just crazy enough to do some good. Please give her a chance.
https://aria4sheriff.com/
Thursday July 09, 20
07:53 AM
Please,
do not just enjoy it.
Save it. Archive it.
Humanity depends on you.
Marxism 4ever!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JztuhPBaTUU
do not just enjoy it.
Save it. Archive it.
Humanity depends on you.
Marxism 4ever!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JztuhPBaTUU
Friday June 05, 20
02:18 AM
The probable cause hearing was today. Special Agent Richard Dial testified and laid out the case. One of the most important parts referred to a graphic that was held up physically and didn't get caught well on camera, but if you pull up maps next to it and listen to what's said it's very easy to follow nonetheless.
I'm quite justifiably doubtful of the justice system, sad as it is. But so far, so good. It looks like we have a lead investigator who is doing his job, and a special prosecutor who is doing his job, and a judge who is doing his job. As long as that is the case, I feel compelled, and I think we should all feel compelled, to give them a chance.
I have another craptube link for anyone that wants to follow this, the full testimony of the lead agent, it's well worth listening to and carefully. The testimony is likely to be essentially repeated at trial, though certain parts might be testified to by other people rather than Mr Dial at that time.
One thing I want to point out though, they have these craptastic "breaking news" graphics all over it, and one of them says "The McMichaels were initially not charged with shooting due to Georgia's citizen's arrest law" which isn't true at all.
But it's CourtTV. Their analysis tends to be a bit sensationalist, don't watch them for their analysis. Watch them for stuff like this - the full testimony rather than a 20 second soundbite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ4oj5aNSJE
I'm quite justifiably doubtful of the justice system, sad as it is. But so far, so good. It looks like we have a lead investigator who is doing his job, and a special prosecutor who is doing his job, and a judge who is doing his job. As long as that is the case, I feel compelled, and I think we should all feel compelled, to give them a chance.
I have another craptube link for anyone that wants to follow this, the full testimony of the lead agent, it's well worth listening to and carefully. The testimony is likely to be essentially repeated at trial, though certain parts might be testified to by other people rather than Mr Dial at that time.
One thing I want to point out though, they have these craptastic "breaking news" graphics all over it, and one of them says "The McMichaels were initially not charged with shooting due to Georgia's citizen's arrest law" which isn't true at all.
But it's CourtTV. Their analysis tends to be a bit sensationalist, don't watch them for their analysis. Watch them for stuff like this - the full testimony rather than a 20 second soundbite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ4oj5aNSJE
Thursday May 28, 20
10:12 PM
Let's dissect this.
Sås = https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY
Issued on: May 28, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sås = https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY
Issued on: May 28, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Saturday May 16, 20
11:10 PM
I didn't want to write on this when it first came out. It's an ugly situation, and deeply divisive, and any interest I had in amplifying it went moot when the case got an outside prosecutor.
But since our resident old imposter pederast himself has seen fit to release the napalm, I thought I should go ahead and lay down some facts.
One important fact about the case that should be kept in mind is that the initial headlines were click-bait and race-bait. This is unfortunate, as it predictably leads to some people writing it off because it quickly fit the pattern of fake news narrative they are (reasonably) tired of being deceived by.
Whatever else one can say here, this was not just a case of a black man jogging in the wrong neighborhood and being shot for that alone. Which is the narrative that a lot of the media went with and is still stuck in many heads.
There's a considerable back-story implied with the few facts that have been reliably reported. It will be the job of the trial court to evaluate all available evidence and testimony and drag those facts to light.
That said, I think it's absolutely indefensible that this was not prosecuted until a bit of a national stink was raised about it. The initial effort to simply sweep the incident under the carpet without real investigation, let alone a trial, was a disgrace.
Was it an instance of racism? Possibly. But there are other possible motivations. Regardless of motivation, it strikes me as very worthy of investigation, and at the very least removal from office. Given just the information initially available to the prosecutor, the decision not to investigate further seems indefensible. Racism, corruption, simple willingness to betray the law for your old buddy - I can't think of a defense that doesn't suck here.
But please, let's have a trial, not a war. Or, at the very least, let's wait for the trial before we decide whether or not to have a war.
Aristarchus just wants you dead so he can bugger your little boys anyway, don't listen to him.
Alright, I've rambled long enough, I'll introduce my brother the lawyer to discuss the finer points for those that are interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-HMjlr1sU [18:18 craptube video]
But since our resident old imposter pederast himself has seen fit to release the napalm, I thought I should go ahead and lay down some facts.
One important fact about the case that should be kept in mind is that the initial headlines were click-bait and race-bait. This is unfortunate, as it predictably leads to some people writing it off because it quickly fit the pattern of fake news narrative they are (reasonably) tired of being deceived by.
Whatever else one can say here, this was not just a case of a black man jogging in the wrong neighborhood and being shot for that alone. Which is the narrative that a lot of the media went with and is still stuck in many heads.
There's a considerable back-story implied with the few facts that have been reliably reported. It will be the job of the trial court to evaluate all available evidence and testimony and drag those facts to light.
That said, I think it's absolutely indefensible that this was not prosecuted until a bit of a national stink was raised about it. The initial effort to simply sweep the incident under the carpet without real investigation, let alone a trial, was a disgrace.
Was it an instance of racism? Possibly. But there are other possible motivations. Regardless of motivation, it strikes me as very worthy of investigation, and at the very least removal from office. Given just the information initially available to the prosecutor, the decision not to investigate further seems indefensible. Racism, corruption, simple willingness to betray the law for your old buddy - I can't think of a defense that doesn't suck here.
But please, let's have a trial, not a war. Or, at the very least, let's wait for the trial before we decide whether or not to have a war.
Aristarchus just wants you dead so he can bugger your little boys anyway, don't listen to him.
Alright, I've rambled long enough, I'll introduce my brother the lawyer to discuss the finer points for those that are interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-HMjlr1sU [18:18 craptube video]
Saturday April 25, 20
02:46 AM
I knew this breeder was going to be worth his own tag.
<teaser>
We are either living in a post-truth world or a truthless world and either way it is fricking depressing.
<intro music>
Viva Frei Montreal litigator turned Youtuber it is yet another car vlawg it is going to be yet another toned down car vlawg because I yet again have a kid sleeping in the backseat.
So it's Friday, there's news, which means that there is fake news and I think I'm gonna go with the term Fake News Friday.
<intro music>
In todays episode of Fake News Friday, it seems the Media would have us believe that Donald Trump actually seriously suggested injecting bleach or disinfectant in order to kill the MySharonCyrus,™ and in case you don't believe me let me just read you a few headlines:
</teaser>
<link>
https://youtu.be/TbqGop2cfVc?t=37
</link>
<me>
Any mistakes in my transcription are my own, if there's a non skynet url please post it I'll mod it right up. I'm really not going to sit here and transcribe the entire thing.
But I love that he doesn't waste our time, he speaks expeditiously and gets to the point without too many meandering digressions.
Trump is a gigantic douchebag. But I have no trouble empathizing with people that call him "God Emperor." It's all in what he's running /against./
Anti-Trump people, listen to me. When you make shit up, or uncritically repeat someone who makes shit up, and it turns out to be bullshit, you don't make us look good, you make him look less bad by comparison. You make us look like lunatics.
CUT THIS SHIT OUT!
And pro-Trump people, assuming he had good intentions at all, clearly he's been stymied. The next four years are going to be particularly dangerous, in terms of whatever benefits he bought being reversed harshly. Do NOT give him unconditional support, well, too late for that to matter now I suspect but it's still true. Beyond that though, look at congressional districts. Don't vote based on party, vote based on policy. If he truly is against the forever war, then the only explanation is he doesn't have enough support in Congress - and you don't give him more support by blindly voting (R). You give him more support on this issue by voting for the policy, not the party. There are a few (R)s a few (D)s a few (L)s a few (G)s and I'm sure a few more I forgot to mention, but look for people that advocate sensible policy whenever there is anyone that comes reasonably close to that.
And when no one does, just vote against the incumbent.
Ok, that's enough of </me.>
<teaser>
We are either living in a post-truth world or a truthless world and either way it is fricking depressing.
<intro music>
Viva Frei Montreal litigator turned Youtuber it is yet another car vlawg it is going to be yet another toned down car vlawg because I yet again have a kid sleeping in the backseat.
So it's Friday, there's news, which means that there is fake news and I think I'm gonna go with the term Fake News Friday.
<intro music>
In todays episode of Fake News Friday, it seems the Media would have us believe that Donald Trump actually seriously suggested injecting bleach or disinfectant in order to kill the MySharonCyrus,™ and in case you don't believe me let me just read you a few headlines:
</teaser>
<link>
https://youtu.be/TbqGop2cfVc?t=37
</link>
<me>
Any mistakes in my transcription are my own, if there's a non skynet url please post it I'll mod it right up. I'm really not going to sit here and transcribe the entire thing.
But I love that he doesn't waste our time, he speaks expeditiously and gets to the point without too many meandering digressions.
Trump is a gigantic douchebag. But I have no trouble empathizing with people that call him "God Emperor." It's all in what he's running /against./
Anti-Trump people, listen to me. When you make shit up, or uncritically repeat someone who makes shit up, and it turns out to be bullshit, you don't make us look good, you make him look less bad by comparison. You make us look like lunatics.
CUT THIS SHIT OUT!
And pro-Trump people, assuming he had good intentions at all, clearly he's been stymied. The next four years are going to be particularly dangerous, in terms of whatever benefits he bought being reversed harshly. Do NOT give him unconditional support, well, too late for that to matter now I suspect but it's still true. Beyond that though, look at congressional districts. Don't vote based on party, vote based on policy. If he truly is against the forever war, then the only explanation is he doesn't have enough support in Congress - and you don't give him more support by blindly voting (R). You give him more support on this issue by voting for the policy, not the party. There are a few (R)s a few (D)s a few (L)s a few (G)s and I'm sure a few more I forgot to mention, but look for people that advocate sensible policy whenever there is anyone that comes reasonably close to that.
And when no one does, just vote against the incumbent.
Ok, that's enough of </me.>
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.
-- Ogden Nash
