The 2020 General Election Thread

[OakRiver]

Oh, it's nothing. Alpo assures us it's all good. Nothing to worry about. It's not like someone in a position of making public policy for Twitter was influencing their policies to favor Democrats.

It's a good thing Alpo is our bellweather - whatever he thinks, it is usually best to go the opposite way

 

[Alpo]

Kinda seems like you didn't pay attention to which noun I was talking about about. "Market" was the hingy part, not "monopoly" You didn't like the sound of "micro-blogging", which is a subset of the social media market. So basically, Twitter and Facebook don't really compete against each other because they both operate in different markets within tech/social media.

With that cleared up, micro-blogging is owned by Twitter. Their closest competitor in that space is Gab, which has almost no market share compared with Twitter. So yes, Twitter dominates that market and pretty much has a Monopoly.

Finally, no one said it's about fanboy count. That's just a jab you threw in. We've been talking about monopolies, market share, Facebook, Twitter, to a large extent Youtube, have monopolies in their own spaces within social media. Tik Tok competes with Youtube. They have overlap, but they're not serious competitors. Twitch also competes with Youtube a little, but again only in the areas where they overlap. And that's not all that serious.

You've defined your view of the "market". That isn't a view that I would agree with, nor would many others.

It is always possible to define your "specialness" within the overall bubble, but it is the larger bubble that represents the market.

Twitter, may be a microblogger, but their subject matter is not their delivery system and it is the subject matter and dissemination control that is the larger characteristic.

But, keep working on it. Mayhaps an out of work lawyer will carry you as an expert witness.

 

[Alpo]

It's a good thing Alpo is our bellweather - whatever he thinks, it is usually best to go the opposite way

One of us is likely to be happy with the election results.

I'll grant you that I would prefer it be me. I know: selfishness.

 

[d.kaufman]

One of us is likely to be happy with the election results.

I'll grant you that I would prefer it be me. I know: selfishness.

geojson file viewer

 

[Ingomike]

Twitter- Privately owned, not a free speech issue

Yes it is a free speech issue. They have been granted immunity from liability for content not posted by them, for the purpose of an open forum. They are now acting as a publisher while still claiming that immunity. They just incrementally increased their editing until now, in an election, they are affecting news distribution, as they are the leading source of headline news in the country.

Book of faces is doing likewise. They are deciding what the public can disseminate concerning the virus, including the president. It was funny, if we're not so disturbing, that Trump was censored for a wuwho flu post and about a week later the subject of that post was the conclusion of a Harvard study.

That should not happen, they are not the arbiters of what the public or president can say...

 

[Ingomike]

Don't forget: the NYT receiving and publishing the tax information was illegal. There is no such concern with the Biden data from the laptop, as the property was abandoned, and ownership passed to the electronic store.

My understanding is that SCOTUS has ruled that if the publisher did not participate in the illegal obtaining of the information then they can publish it without committing a crime. I would expect that NYT is smart enough to distance themselves from the crime, but hope not...

 

[Alpo]

Yes it is a free speech issue. They have been granted immunity from liability for content not posted by them, for the purpose of an open forum. They are now acting as a publisher while still claiming that immunity. They just incrementally increased their editing until now, in an election, they are affecting news distribution, as they are the leading source of headline news in the country.

Book of faces is doing likewise. They are deciding what the public can disseminate concerning the virus, including the president. It was funny, if we're not so disturbing, that Trump was censored for a wuwho flu post and about a week later the subject of that post was the conclusion of a Harvard study.

That should not happen, they are not the arbiters of what the public or president can say...

Falsehoods and fabrications are not protected free speech under the First Amendment.

 

[Ingomike]

Falsehoods and fabrications are not protected free speech under the First Amendment.

If I believe taking honey will cure wuwho flu and want to tell others, just who the hell can constitutionally tell me I cannot on my own micro-blog page?

 

[Doug]

If I believe taking honey will cure wuwho flu and want to tell others, just who the hell can constitutionally tell me I cannot on my own micro-blog page?

Joe Biden's Ministry of Truth if he gets elected.

 

[chipbennett]

Falsehoods and fabrications are not protected free speech under the First Amendment.

Yes, they are.

“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.


Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppressions of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution . . .


Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy, unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society.

Louis Brandeis, concurring, Whitney v California (1927)

 

[Alpo]

If I believe taking honey will cure wuwho flu and want to tell others, just who the hell can constitutionally tell me I cannot on my own micro-blog page?

Twitter can. And has done so in the past with "cures".

 

[Alpo]

Yes, they are.

Louis Brandeis, concurring, Whitney v California (1927)

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

A better reference for you might be Gertz v. Welch

 

[jamil]

You've defined your view of the "market". That isn't a view that I would agree with, nor would many others.

It is always possible to define your "specialness" within the overall bubble, but it is the larger bubble that represents the market.

Twitter, may be a microblogger, but their subject matter is not their delivery system and it is the subject matter and dissemination control that is the larger characteristic.

But, keep working on it. Mayhaps an out of work lawyer will carry you as an expert witness.

You didn’t actually say anything. My contention is that Twitter controls the market they’re in. Who are their competitors? Name them. Then tell me what their market shares are. THAT’S how you refute my claim. Just saying that I don’t know what I’m talking about doesn’t address my claim. I’m not claiming to be an expert in economics. But I can recognize a monopoly when I see one. I’m not driven by an ideological reason to be irrationally dismissive.

 

[jamil]

geojson file viewer

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I would not bet on either, but the odds are that Biden wins, America loses.

 

[jamil]

Twitter can. And has done so in the past with "cures".

Then they should be liable if they cause harm if they’re wrong.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I would not bet on either, but the odds are that Biden wins, Deplorable America loses.

FIFY

 

[jamil]

FIFY

Now that’s just being snotty. When you came back I was a little suspicious of the “honest broker” sort of vibe you had. I liked it. And I was hoping it wasn’t an act. Guess it was. That’s disappointing.

 

[KG1]

My understanding is that SCOTUS has ruled that if the publisher did not participate in the illegal obtaining of the information then they can publish it without committing a crime. I would expect that NYT is smart enough to distance themselves from the crime, but hope not...

I'm not so sure though if that applies to divulging un-authorized tax return information. I posted a specific code as it relates to tax returns in the Trump taxes thread. Specifically of note is subsection (3) "other person" IDK if what the NYT did would fall under that provision.


26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next​

(a)Returns and return information(1)Federal employees and other personsIt shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103(n) (or an officer or employee of any such person), or any former officer or employee, willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution, and if such offense is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, he shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for such offense.


(2)State and other employeesIt shall be unlawful for any person (not described in paragraph (1)) willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) acquired by him or another person under subsection (d), (i)(1)(C), (3)(B)(i), or (7)(A)(ii), (k)(10), (13), or (14), (l)(6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (15), (16), (19), (20), or (21) or (m)(2), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 6103 or under section 6104(c). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.


(3)Other personsIt shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

 

[OakRiver]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-became-a-professor-after-leaving-the-senate

"Former Vice President Joe Biden raised confusion Wednesday during a virtual round table after claiming he became a “professor” when he left the U.S. Senate.

"When I left the United States Senate, I became a professor at the University of Pennsylvania," Biden claimed. "And I've spent a lot of time — and the University of Delaware has the Biden School as well, so I've spent a lot of time on campus with college students."


Biden became vice president after leaving the Senate in 2009 and received the title of "Benjamin Franklin Presidential Practice Professor" from the University of Pennsylvania in 2017. He never taught any classes, according to his own spokesperson at the time.


Biden’s claim immediately drew attention on social media."

 

[KG1]

Now that’s just being snotty. When you came back I was a little suspicious of the “honest broker” sort of vibe you had. I liked it. And I was hoping it wasn’t an act. Guess it was. That’s disappointing.

Kuts "FIFY" looks to me like he does see Trump supporters as "Delorables"