You missed the joke. Zuckerberg did not die. But since there shouldn’t be a fact check allowed… I posted the image for comedic effect, not any additional comments on the matter.
I didn’t think Zuck had passed. Assumed it was some sort of wise ass joke. Not funny to me. Not worthy of consideration or respect. I have no interest in such foolishness.
They specifically can take actions when the content is
“deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service”
It’s right there in the existing regulations. Even referenced directly in the “executive order”, with the complaint that personally the baby-in-chief himself thinks he gets to be the arbiter of what that means. Obviously the person who posts the content is not expected to be the arbiter of what is deceptive, pretextual, or against the terms of service. It’s the provider… That’s the existing law.
They also have taken action this morning based on the terms of service violations. (More recent, not sure if you saw yet). I’m not providing any commentary (for, against, etc), just providing the reference for awareness of current events.
Removing the platform protection (using your term, not sure if that’s the actual term, but it does sound right) would result in compelling them all to provide fact-checks and much stricter close monitoring of all posts for violations. Because without the protection, they would be directly liable for any consequences of whatever the individuals (like Trump) choose to post. This seems to be the opposite end-result of what the President seems to “want”. It would amount to a complete shutdown of the bullhorn he currently uses to spread disinformation. None of the social media companies could continue to operate as-is. I’m not a fan of social media in general, so I’d have no problem with that result myself.
Look, first of all the arguments I’m hearing made have nothing whatsoever to do with Trump or his executive order. So please cast that aside.
It’s an old law and I’ve not studied the details. Zuck wants no part of the direction Twitter is taking. There are implications he sees as unwelcome. Twitter appears to have made a different decision, which is their prerogative. Now we shall see if Barr can nail 'em in court. Hope it happens. They stink of liberalism.
I believe you’re misreading Zuckerberg’s motivations. It’s about business, never morality.
Zuckerberg doesn’t want to be targeted by the personal-attorney “Attorney General”, and a politically weaponized “Justice” department. Facebook has been in deep trouble before from their actions exploiting user-data and manipulating user feeds, they don’t want more government or public scrutiny and know with this administration that what matters is primarily the personal whims of the President. Extra users if the alt-right migrates from twitter to Facebook would also be helpful to Facebook’s advertising revenues.
If the President is re-elected, and at that time the President is happy with Facebook (seeing Zuckerberg as personally “loyal” to Trump), they know they can do pretty much whatever they want for the next four years.
It’s the same reason Tim Apple has consistently been so nice (and I own quite a bit of Apple stock). It’s a good business plan.
Yes, we agree. Zuck is standing aside owing solely to business reasons . . . possible legal jeopardy . . . and so forth.
1 Like
Social media in its current form is the scourge of society and should be eliminated or heavily regulated into changing. Poor privacy practices is just one problem. Micro-targeted advertising, content-steering, and the ability to share and amplify manipulated or outright false content without any checks or speed breaks creates huge bubbles of misinformed people (be they alt-right, alt-left, or just stupid UFO and ghost hunters). It’s bad for democracy.
8 Likes
A terrible situation happening all over our country. A night of vandalism, looting & despair, all in the name of George Floyd. What will happen tonight?
I believe the hoodlums were just lying in wait for another instance to pounce on. A reason to burn & steal for their own sake.
Last night I was utterly surprised when I saw Bakersfield CA on the rampage. Why?? I was born there. My mother would turn in her grave. So sad…
1 Like
Vandalism and looting only validates the perception of fear.
Rosa Parks protested by refusing to give up her seat. Rosa Parks did not protest by lighting the seat on fire. Had she, our history over the past 65 years would be drastically different.
2 Likes
It’s wrong to characterize all the protesters as hoodlums. See the history of the similarly racially charged phrase the President (!) tweeted, which was used previously by segregationists and to justify police brutality. Since “the hood” refers to the minority neighborhoods, it is seemingly pinning everything on the minority groups. There are people of every nationality participating, if you saw much of the coverage last night, that would be clear.
The protest climate allows multiple opportunist groups to do “their things”. There’s also anarchists (in Guy Fawkes masks), white nationalists, and other groups that also use the protests as cover for also creating destruction in at least some of the cities. The groups of people confronting the police and causing damage or looting aren’t all even related. The real protesters are unwittingly providing cover for the radical groups.
There was also significant violence during the civil rights movement.
Edit:
MN says most of the arrested “protesters” aren’t local
"Mayor Jacob Frey said the people who are coming to Minneapolis to protest are not residents and are “coming in largely from outside the city.”
“Our Minneapolis residents are scared and rightfully so. We’ve seen longterm institutional businesses overridden. We’ve seen community institutions set on fire. And I want to be very, very clear. The people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents,” he said at a news briefing on Saturday.
He said the protests earlier this week that were mostly peaceful and were largely attended by those who lived in the city, but “the dynamic has changed.”
“Gradually that shift was made and we saw more and more people coming from outside of the city. We saw more and more people looking to cause violence in our communities, and I have to say, it is not acceptable,” Frey said."
1 Like
Thank you very much… I appreciate it… 
To clarify, I wasn’t saying that I think the people starting fires, committing violent acts and looting were good people or had good motivations. To the contrary.
The term used just seems to have racial undertones that aren’t intentional. It can be an accurate term (strictly by the definition, it’s fairly accurate) but still get other people upset (doesn’t get me upset personally…), and might be unproductive in general with trying to resolve the ongoing situation.
1 Like
And makes one think the cops were generally justified in treating people like the victim as criminals because as this shows many of them are criminals - just waiting for the right opportunity to start looting, rioting, burning down buildings, etc.
Protestors I support, especially in this case. Looters? I don’t care one bit what happens to them.
1 Like
Back on the topic of the election, but taking very much into account the above discussion about the riots and mayhem:
In the view from 30,000 feet this might easily end up helping Trump in November . . . not now certainly . . . but in five months. Here is my thinking as to why:
This is impinging upon, it is narrowing, Biden’s VP choice options:
He already has lost Amy, perhaps his strongest candidate. I don’t see how he can pick Kamala now, with her tough on crime credentials. Biden will sweep California anyway, with or without Kamala. Her significant law enforcement activity in the past could actually harm Biden’s chances in other states.
Val Demings, in Florida, might have given the ticket a boost there. But she is a former Chief of Police for goodness sake!! They already have burned one police station and surely would like to burn others. A former Chief of Police for VP? Now?! I just cannot see it.
Unless Biden goes with a white woman, which decision would carry its own serious downside, we are looking at Stacey or Susan (Rice). Both women are excellent Democrats and are solid VP choices if you are a Democrat.
But the reason I’m posting this here, and not on the Democrat thread, is because I believe both those women are weak candidates when viewed by the general electorate with Democrats excluded. I believe choosing either woman would cause Biden to lose votes. It’s difficult to envision either one of them in the Oval Office . . . which with Biden in office is surely where they might end up sooner than later.
Biden is on the spot. He has to address all the unrest with more than just words. He has to offer salve, solace, and hope as well with his VP pick. And I think a choice of either Susan or Stacey, while offering that comfort, could also lose him the election.
1 Like
It’s clear many are using the crowds to blend in for other destructive purposes.
Yes he says that, but most looters are actually locals.
Leggat said looting is typically done by locals - usually people with no criminal record who just get caught up in the moment. And despite claims otherwise by officials, records show most arrested are locals…
Of the 45 people arrested for rioting, unlawful assembly, stolen property, burglary or robbery on May 29 and May 30 so far, 38 had Minnesota addresses, according to publicly available jail records reviewed by FOX 9. Only six had out-of-state address, and one person didn’t have address information listed.
This always happens - the local government always blames “outsiders” and it’s almost never true. Happened in several prior similar riot situations, and I wondered how long it would take for this line to be brought out. I get why they lie - they’re trying to convince the locals that they’re better than those bad other guys and should behave better, and hopefully this leads to less future rioting. But that doesn’t make it true. Conceptually I don’t think the people who were looking to loot home goods from Target would bother to come from out of state for maybe $100 of random stuff.
3 Likes
I thought the claim with out of towners is that they’re goal is to wreak havoc and cause headlines, not steal stuff? The looting, fighting, vandalism, etc are just tools.
1 Like
Dang! I’m so naive about some of these things! It must be my age (that’s always a handy excuse for inability to “get” stuff). Anyway:
Trump’s polling is actually UP four points in the wake of all this rioting!! He is now at 46%, within reach of where he needs to be.
I was seeing the riots as a negative for Trump, something that would depress his number. Wrong. Apparently:
There are more white people in this country than people of color, and they might be frightened and moving their preference to the candidate who more readily identifies with them and not with the rioters.
To me, when ANY American is literally tortured to death by some insane police officer, with three other officers just standing around watching the execution, it’s time to protest big time.
I do concede riots are not the same as protests. While legitimate, vigorous, and incredibly appropriate, protests might help Biden, I guess the riots are instead helping Trump.
Yes, that has got to be the only good thing.
Yesterday I called the rioters hoodlums, & was call down on that. Today I’ll call them criminals that are causing vandalism, looting, even killing in the name of protesting.
This morning I watched CNN for a time, just to see their take on last night. Pitiful commentary. Left leaning, of course. One instance of rightful thinking came from guest, Larry O’Brien. Taper tried to move him, but he kept on talking. Promoting Trump & how the Reps are going to handle this situation.