>"We need a federal law prohibiting censorship of lawful speech on major social media platforms," Nehlen asserts. "It is well-known that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube discriminate against the right-wing, as evidenced by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's recent comments. While widely heralded for those comments, they rang hollow with no suggested solution. This law is that solution. It will extend Americans' First Amendment free speech protections onto major social media platforms."
>"We are not extensively regulating or trust-busting," Nehlen explains, "because people generally like how the platforms perform in terms of functionality. This law will not interfere with features or functionality, so market forces will remain in play. The problem is their censorship of lawful speech. Hypocritically, the same companies that support net neutrality also want to censor your speech. We say no."
>For purposes of this legislation, "censorship" includes: >Denial of platform access and normal use thereof (e.g., lockouts, suspensions, bans) >"Shadowbanning" >Issuance of "verified" status based on any factor(s) unrelated to identity authentication >"Throttling" accounts and/or content without disclosure >Embargoing content (i.e., no "memory-holing" content without the consent of the creator) >Manipulating "trending" algorithms without disclosure >Demonetization
>"Lawful speech" is based upon the standards enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, with the following limitations: >No child pornography >No explicit, credible threats of physical violence >No publishing any individual's nonpublic residential address, telephone number, or email address without their consent >Platforms may choose to prohibit otherwise-lawful pornographic video (i.e., video containing explicit sexual acts) >Restrictions on copyrighted content are already addressed by the DMCA
>"Major social media platforms" means social media platforms that enjoy a market share above minimum threshold level. At present, it would include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit. (Smaller platforms and message boards will not be affected.)
>The legislation would impose company fines of $500,000 per instance of wrongful censorship, and would be enforced by the FCC. Judicial remedies (both monetary and non-monetary) may also be available to aggrieved parties.
>"The bedrock of American society is freedom of speech. Social media companies have usurped this freedom, and we intend to give it back to the American people," says Nehlen.
>"This is just one more instance where Paul Ryan has shown he isn't getting the job done in Washington. The GOP's voters are being systematically censored off of the primary channels of public communication by left-wing tech giants, and Ryan – indeed, the entire GOP Congress – has sat utterly mute for years and allowed it to happen. In the absence of leadership, I willingly step into the breach."
I love this fucking timeline. So many things are starting to look way up. Though honestly I wish there was more of a willingness to engage in trust-busting outright, I'll gladly take this.
>Thinks businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people for being gay >Doesn't think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people who violate the contracts they sign when they enter into business with those companies.
>>416900 I don't know if it necessarily follows that people who abuse their power to coerce sex out of people they have power over are also conspiring against a presidential candidate because she's a woman. Like don't get me wrong--I'm a full on feminist, and I don't question the women who brought up charges against them at all. Nor the fact that it's an indication of a lack of respect for women. But it sounds like you're trying to extrapolate that to suggest these people were conspiring against Hilary Clinton in specific, which is a pretty big leap of logic.
>>>/mtv/48438 >Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard? So militant white people should be beaten and jailed but militant black people are a joke? Humans are humans. Angry racist humans are equally scary regardless of race.
>>417374 She was the only intelligent and honest person in that interview. She was trying to pin down and get something resembling human speech out of a vacillating and deceitful obscurant that is mealy-mouthed, logorrheic and unclear on purpose so he can seem wise and so his little insect fans can deduct what they want from his spiels.
>>417456 >…yeah, that wasn’t a serious question, and neither is “so you’re saying…?”. If you have to otherword someone during an argument, you have already lost. Well, how the fuck do you expect someone extract meaning from a non-argument like "Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard?".
>>417457 >Well, how the fuck do you expect someone extract meaning from a non-argument like "Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard?"
You look at the underlying premise of the insult. The "clutching your pearls" idiom means the pearl-clutcher in question acts mortified by some mundane or otherwise common idea—e.g., the idea of Black people owning guns or organizing into a group of two or more people. My insult, then, was an implication that the expressed fear of militant Black people is unfounded and based near-entirely in a racist mindset that sees Black people as inherently criminal and naturally dangerous.
Not sure if other countries do this, but I think at this point it's clear that the United States ought to get hotfixed such that failing to pass a yearly budget just results in funding for stuff that isn't designated temparary getting its budget from last year copied over, maybe adjusted for inflation, instead of defaulting to everything going into shutdown mode.
>>419230 (SEN = Special Education Needs or something) It's hard to make any judgement with this little information, but: 1) Sex != Gender. Is changing the noted sex the right solution to gender dysphoria? Would this cause issues for vaccination/medical emergencies/penis inspection day? 2) Liking trains and cars is a pretty low bar for gender dysphoria. If there is more evidence (there probably is) then this is different but otherwise that's fucked to judge binary gender from such a trivial counter-stereotype. Are all bronies categorically gender dysphoric? 3) Is the mother in denial and not mentioning legitimate evidence?
Wow, the United States sure is in a difficult diplomatic spot right now! Good thing President Trump, by his own admission the greatest negotiator we have, knows that visiting Iran to meet its leaders in person and drive a hard deal face-to-face like only he knows how is the surest way to quickly bring a end to this conflict.
>>419540 Everyone wants control over the Middle East (including Russia, China, or anyone strong at the moment), and no one wants an actual WORLD (see: planes and bombs over the ocean) war. It's about control over the region and destabilization, nothing else.
>>419782 >And is the middle image the same person or just a porn star that also has pigtails? It's almost certainly not her. I think the joke is /pol/anon feels that she is an angry virgin.
>>419783 Yep, prompting a lot of world leaders to essentially bully a teenager. Shit's surreal. That's why movements shouldn't use a single person as an 'inspiration', regardless of what corporate media will try to encorage.
>>419792 >I think the joke is /pol/anon feels that she is an angry virgin. No, the joke is that if she had a stable relationship or someone to give her love (or even just a man to put her in her place), then she'd be a happier person and perhaps a more productive member of society, and not just the current decade equivalent of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE.
But that might not work in her case because last time I checked she was legit autistic and her parents are taking advantage of the fact, and fueling the media attention for their own benefits.
>prompting a lot of world leaders to essentially bully a teenager They are basically telling a dumb kid to go back to school and learn how the world works, and the fact that this is considered bullying tells you a lot about how viable victim stardomship is.
>>419793 >perhaps a more productive member of society Attempting to secure a future for the next century of human and animal life is one of the most productive things a human can do. Going about it poorly? You can debate that. Being unproductive? No.
>They are basically telling a dumb kid to go back to school and learn how the world works ...instead of acknowledging a legitimate problem and working with climate experts to mitigate it in a realistic way.
>>419879 I mean he pretty much freaking stood with a whole crowd of other people in the room while speaking about this virus, so he might have done a whole lot of other crazy unsafe stuff. He's a risky rich-ass after all.
I am conflicted: should I be grateful or concerned by the incompetent response to this pandemic? >many leaders giving harmful instructions to their own supporters, critical thinkers most likely have enough information to stay safe. Might actually have a positive effect on propaganda resistance >reported decrease in global CO2 emissions >social distancing measures could reduce the spread of other diseases >population control without creating an ethical dilemma
>>419918 Case study: Spanish Flu During World War I, countries heavily under-reported to maintain morale. Spain was neutral and reported their numbers reasonably, so it falsely appeared as if Spain was being hit far worse by the flu than any other country.
>>419919 Since it predominantly kills old people, once the virus is gone, the average age of people in the affected countries will be much lower. Less old folk means lesser burden on social spending due to less pensions to be paid out. This will increase the state budget. The large sums of inheritance taxes to be paid will increase it further. Most of those old people are indigenous population, so this will lead to immigrants becoming an ever bigger part (in percentage) of the populace, in particular because they breed faster. This will lead to the state having to spend more on them. On the other hand the indigenous populace will also gain some cash boost due to the inheritances, and perhaps this may lead to more children being born. Since politicians are nearly all very old and thus heavily endangered by the virus, we may see a large shift in political structures (many politicians such as Merkel or Trump were already found spending a lot of time around people who tested positive). Especially if the failed responses to the virus will empower more radical parties. The social distancing also means that digital conferences will be at least tested in practice, for fields such as schools and governments. This may lead to these becoming more and more prevalent in the future.
So whatever happens, the future will be at least interesting, and the world will finally change in a direction.
My favourite part is that so far in 2020 we had famines, floods, locusts, a pandemic, and it's not even April yet.
>>419919 I would be concerned. Even a competent response would still have people staying inside enough for emissions to go down and other diseases to also be affected by social distancing. Overall population isn't a pressing issue, at least as long as we stick with modern food production per acre. That only leaves propoganda resistance, and there's other ways to cultivate that.
If there was a way to specifically protect construction workers, this would be a nice time to overhaul our public transportation systems, since interruptions for upgrades and other service would be less of an issue with greatly reduced traffic.
Anyway, I have a hard time beleiving that the people trying to get everyone back to work as quickly as possible really can't make up excuses better than the ones we've been hearing. Like... Really? Anyone got something more beleivable than "people will just kill themselves" or "saving lives just isn't as important as the liberty and justice of face to face interaction"? Because so far the attempts to convince me that this lockdown needs to be limited have only managed to make me think we're even more able to withstand extending it than I previously expected.
So, no only are prisoners, epsecially nonviolent prisoners, not being released during to the virus in the US despite that easily being a death sentance for many of them, but it doesn't seem unlikely that pritate prisons might simply respond to the deaths by demanding more prisoners get sent in as the disease progresses.
Given that there's also likely to be a lack of hospital space, would it make sense to have private prisons converted to emergency hospitals to both get more hospital space and as a (politically easier?) way to get private prisons to stop demanding prisoners for a bit by giving them something else to get paid for?