-
Getting away from the tech monopoly arguments for a moment (which I thought had another thread (?))
Trump since the election has shown the very personal qualities that many of us have railed against for years. The whole argument of excusing his ways because some of his policies found favour with your leanings was always flawed as it was a matter of time before his narcissism created a bad situation. Luckily it wasn't war, but people have been warning others for a long time that his instability and tantrums were likely to cause problems.
The GOP now have to find a way out of the mess they have helped create. The US is even more divided and the disenfranchised have enede up on the losing side which is likely to result in ever simmering tension.
And all for what? More money in the pockets of those that already have plenty? Easier paths to make money by those that have plenty?
Crazier still is that it was all underpinned by support from those with little and still have little.
A disastrous experiment. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
And all for what? More money in the pockets of those that already have plenty? Easier paths to make money by those that have plenty?
I must say that the Swamp wasn't drained in quite the way I thought - they cut costs by NOT filling positions and then funnelling money into their own interests. Hardly an efficient administration.
Jeez there are a LOT of appointments in Executive Branch tho. Maybe some good could come of it.
-
@Siam sorry I don't get your meaning. I think the organizations have the right to block who they like, I don't consider that censure in the sense he has other means to communicate.
I personally believe social media companies should be better regulated but to me that is a different issue. -
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Wow. Which button did I push? Merely meant to point out there is a duty of care (and a question of scale and impact) regards a world leader accused of using Twitter (or whatever) to stage a coup and a bullied teenager (or their bullies).
I believe the social media giants should be regulated and that they blur journalism and duty and so forth when they feel like it. But currently, they are private companies and IMO can ban who they like. And yes, there are huge gaps in the laws protecting citizens from them, but I could say giant media companies also still seem to shirk responsibility (the phone tapping scandals were disgraceful).
The question of privacy is different (I hope) to question of access.Probably read more shrill than I intended.
The private company line works if they are not publishers. Publishers have different liability under US law, and IMO they have crossed the line with recent actions.
I’m also sick and tired of Google and Facebook, and a lesser degree Twitter, buying their competitors or working in collusion with other service providers to make competition impossible.
They are pulling up the ladders behind them and controlling the 21st century’s version of electricity. It’s deeply concerning for our democracy, our right to privacy and just having choice as a consumer.
Right, ok, we probably are very much in agreement here. I have friends at Facebook and Google and I can't stand the former and I am a little wary of the latter (though I have to rely on it and to a lesser extent Facebook-related companies/products). Twitter, I know less of their influence or business model. I would add Amazon to that list of dangerous companies. Apple possibly as well.
But the issue of who they can ban and suspend, I think, is a different matter.
Then again, if Trump is threatening national security/the Constitution, shouldn't there be legislative or judicial or executive people to rein him in? -
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
And all for what? More money in the pockets of those that already have plenty? Easier paths to make money by those that have plenty?
I must say that the Swamp wasn't drained in quite the way I thought - they cut costs by NOT filling positions and then funnelling money into their own interests. Hardly an efficient administration.
Jeez there are a LOT of appointments in Executive Branch tho. Maybe some good could come of it.
I'd add pardoning your children before they are even charged with something would scream Deep State! to me.
Swamps. When they built the University of Central Florida campus they drained the swamp and moved the alligators out. Very quickly, the alligators moved back in, swamp or no swamp, and depending on the student or department you visit, you may encounter one.
Also Orlando (and Florida in general) themeparks, a boy was called at a Walt Disney resort. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article150486247.html
So rather ironic Trump planned to go to Florida. I understand local lawyers are trying to keep him out so where would he go ? New York doesn't seem that friendly to him. -
@nostrildamus NYC will be tough for him and his kids for a while. Apparently he is not allowed to reside at Mar a lago permanently per an agreement with residents of the surrounding area
-
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Then again, if Trump is threatening national security/the Constitution, shouldn't there be legislative or judicial or executive people to rein him in?
That puzzles me, also. I think they're are a few people who would stand him down if he tried something really crazy like a nuke launch, but his tenure has been mostly about hot air in practice.
-
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Wow. Which button did I push? Merely meant to point out there is a duty of care (and a question of scale and impact) regards a world leader accused of using Twitter (or whatever) to stage a coup and a bullied teenager (or their bullies).
I believe the social media giants should be regulated and that they blur journalism and duty and so forth when they feel like it. But currently, they are private companies and IMO can ban who they like. And yes, there are huge gaps in the laws protecting citizens from them, but I could say giant media companies also still seem to shirk responsibility (the phone tapping scandals were disgraceful).
The question of privacy is different (I hope) to question of access.Probably read more shrill than I intended.
The private company line works if they are not publishers. Publishers have different liability under US law, and IMO they have crossed the line with recent actions.
I’m also sick and tired of Google and Facebook, and a lesser degree Twitter, buying their competitors or working in collusion with other service providers to make competition impossible.
They are pulling up the ladders behind them and controlling the 21st century’s version of electricity. It’s deeply concerning for our democracy, our right to privacy and just having choice as a consumer.
Right, ok, we probably are very much in agreement here. I have friends at Facebook and Google and I can't stand the former and I am a little wary of the latter (though I have to rely on it and to a lesser extent Facebook-related companies/products). Twitter, I know less of their influence or business model. I would add Amazon to that list of dangerous companies. Apple possibly as well.
But the issue of who they can ban and suspend, I think, is a different matter.
Then again, if Trump is threatening national security/the Constitution, shouldn't there be legislative or judicial or executive people to rein him in?Twitter's business model involves showing growth (number of users) and advertising. Perhaps that's why they seem slow to remove bot accounts, Isis training videos, or the child porn that they still host.
Agree completely about Amazon, less about Apple who are really just a hardware company. They become an issue when they work together with Google to remove an app, because between them both that's the full mobile computing market.
I'd be happy for them to ban whoever they like if they weren't at the same time removing their competition. We have five companies working together shaping the market in their favour.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Wow. Which button did I push? Merely meant to point out there is a duty of care (and a question of scale and impact) regards a world leader accused of using Twitter (or whatever) to stage a coup and a bullied teenager (or their bullies).
I believe the social media giants should be regulated and that they blur journalism and duty and so forth when they feel like it. But currently, they are private companies and IMO can ban who they like. And yes, there are huge gaps in the laws protecting citizens from them, but I could say giant media companies also still seem to shirk responsibility (the phone tapping scandals were disgraceful).
The question of privacy is different (I hope) to question of access.Probably read more shrill than I intended.
The private company line works if they are not publishers. Publishers have different liability under US law, and IMO they have crossed the line with recent actions.
I’m also sick and tired of Google and Facebook, and a lesser degree Twitter, buying their competitors or working in collusion with other service providers to make competition impossible.
They are pulling up the ladders behind them and controlling the 21st century’s version of electricity. It’s deeply concerning for our democracy, our right to privacy and just having choice as a consumer.
Right, ok, we probably are very much in agreement here. I have friends at Facebook and Google and I can't stand the former and I am a little wary of the latter (though I have to rely on it and to a lesser extent Facebook-related companies/products). Twitter, I know less of their influence or business model. I would add Amazon to that list of dangerous companies. Apple possibly as well.
But the issue of who they can ban and suspend, I think, is a different matter.
Then again, if Trump is threatening national security/the Constitution, shouldn't there be legislative or judicial or executive people to rein him in?Twitter's business model involves showing growth (number of users) and advertising. Perhaps that's why they seem slow to remove bot accounts, Isis training videos, or the child porn that they still host.
Agree completely about Amazon, less about Apple who are really just a hardware company. They become an issue when they work together with Google to remove an app, because between them both that's the full mobile computing market.
I'd be happy for them to ban whoever they like if they weren't at the same time removing their competition. We have five companies working together shaping the market in their favour.
Unless there is evidence that they are colluding for common gain, I don't see how you can ever stop this
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Wow. Which button did I push? Merely meant to point out there is a duty of care (and a question of scale and impact) regards a world leader accused of using Twitter (or whatever) to stage a coup and a bullied teenager (or their bullies).
I believe the social media giants should be regulated and that they blur journalism and duty and so forth when they feel like it. But currently, they are private companies and IMO can ban who they like. And yes, there are huge gaps in the laws protecting citizens from them, but I could say giant media companies also still seem to shirk responsibility (the phone tapping scandals were disgraceful).
The question of privacy is different (I hope) to question of access.Probably read more shrill than I intended.
The private company line works if they are not publishers. Publishers have different liability under US law, and IMO they have crossed the line with recent actions.
I’m also sick and tired of Google and Facebook, and a lesser degree Twitter, buying their competitors or working in collusion with other service providers to make competition impossible.
They are pulling up the ladders behind them and controlling the 21st century’s version of electricity. It’s deeply concerning for our democracy, our right to privacy and just having choice as a consumer.
Right, ok, we probably are very much in agreement here. I have friends at Facebook and Google and I can't stand the former and I am a little wary of the latter (though I have to rely on it and to a lesser extent Facebook-related companies/products). Twitter, I know less of their influence or business model. I would add Amazon to that list of dangerous companies. Apple possibly as well.
But the issue of who they can ban and suspend, I think, is a different matter.
Then again, if Trump is threatening national security/the Constitution, shouldn't there be legislative or judicial or executive people to rein him in?Twitter's business model involves showing growth (number of users) and advertising. Perhaps that's why they seem slow to remove bot accounts, Isis training videos, or the child porn that they still host.
Agree completely about Amazon, less about Apple who are really just a hardware company. They become an issue when they work together with Google to remove an app, because between them both that's the full mobile computing market.
I'd be happy for them to ban whoever they like if they weren't at the same time removing their competition. We have five companies working together shaping the market in their favour.
Unless there is evidence that they are colluding for common gain, I don't see how you can ever stop this
They have been caught before and fined, Apple and Amazon colluded to fix book prices and several Silicon Valley companies had illegal aggreements to not poach staff. Also fined.
They can be held to account, just as Microsoft was in the 90s.
In any case, just like with GDPR, the solution will probably come from European law as both the Democrats and Republicans don't seem to care about people's privacy.
-
This will hurt Trump more, in the pocket.
Two of Donald Trump’s favoured banks are pulling away from the billionaire president in the wake of last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol. Deutsche Bank AG has decided to refrain from further business with Trump and his company, said a person with knowledge of the matter, asking not to be identified because the deliberations were confidential. Trump owes the Frankfurt-based lender more than $300 million. And Signature Bank, the New York lender that’s long catered to his family, said it’s cutting ties while it presses for his resignation. Signature is closing two personal accounts in which Trump held about $5.3 million, a spokesperson for the firm said on Monday.
-
@Bovidae said in US Politics:
This will hurt Trump more, in the pocket.
Two of Donald Trump’s favoured banks are pulling away from the billionaire president in the wake of last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol. Deutsche Bank AG has decided to refrain from further business with Trump and his company, said a person with knowledge of the matter, asking not to be identified because the deliberations were confidential. Trump owes the Frankfurt-based lender more than $300 million. And Signature Bank, the New York lender that’s long catered to his family, said it’s cutting ties while it presses for his resignation. Signature is closing two personal accounts in which Trump held about $5.3 million, a spokesperson for the firm said on Monday.
This won't hurt Trump. It'll actually benefit him. Interest rates have dropped so he can reprice the business.
Fuck all bankers are politcally driven, so there will be a queue longer than you can imagine of financiers ready to play ball.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
Why would they try so hard to block Trump now?
Because he's no longer going to be POTUS and is effectively powerless against them?
He's been spouting lies for years
So did Obama and virtually any other politician you can think of - not to mention the likes of CNN, NBC etc.
As always, its all about the bottom line and they all clearly feel Trump is bad for business
Spot on. They have given themselves the power to censor based on the bottom line - and that's the really dangerous bit
-
@Bovidae said in US Politics:
This will hurt Trump more, in the pocket.
Two of Donald Trump’s favoured banks are pulling away from the billionaire president in the wake of last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol. Deutsche Bank AG has decided to refrain from further business with Trump and his company, said a person with knowledge of the matter, asking not to be identified because the deliberations were confidential. Trump owes the Frankfurt-based lender more than $300 million. And Signature Bank, the New York lender that’s long catered to his family, said it’s cutting ties while it presses for his resignation. Signature is closing two personal accounts in which Trump held about $5.3 million, a spokesperson for the firm said on Monday.
If you owe the bank $100, you have a problem.
If you owe the bank $100M, the bank has a problem. -
@NTA said in US Politics:
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.
That's pretty laughable from AWS who've successfully argued against being held liable for content on their platforms. It's either cartel behaviour to shut down a new market entrant, some pretty amazing double standards or sucking up to the new administration. Probably all three.
So let the Ayatollah go nuts. He's not getting the kind of coverage / trouble that 88M followers gets you.
Unregulated, unaccountable, inconsistent censorship based on follower numbers and market share? What could possibly go wrong?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@NTA said in US Politics:
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.
That's pretty laughable from AWS who've successfully argued against being held liable for content on their platforms. It's either cartel behaviour to shut down a new market entrant, some pretty amazing double standards or sucking up to the new administration. Probably all three.
So let the Ayatollah go nuts. He's not getting the kind of coverage / trouble that 88M followers gets you.
Unregulated, unaccountable, inconsistent censorship based on follower numbers and market share? What could possibly go wrong?
Well, if they want to suck up to Biden, best to sack all white men. He's made it perfectly clear that he's priorities are non-whites and woman.
-
@Bovidae said in US Politics:
@MajorRage I understand these are (were) the only banks left that would deal with Trump. If he has burnt others in the past they won't be lining up to help again.
I assure you, as long as he can get past the bank's politically exposed person (PEP) compliance, then he won't have a problem. Refinancing a 300mm debt on a guy with 1bn plus of assets is banking gravy.
-
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
I assure you, as long as he can get past the bank's politically exposed person (PEP) compliance, then he won't have a problem.
If Hunter Biden can.....
-
@MajorRage if you can trust the value of those assets.
His franchise and hotel income is also under threat.
US Politics