- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:00 am to Nguyener
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/3/20 at 9:29 am
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:03 am to bamarep
Google should just route all searches originating from the White House to a special landing with only positive, glowing articles about trump.
Problem solved!
Problem solved!
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:10 am to Old Hellen Yeller
I think the outright internet banning Alex Jones has people noticing.
Jones is just a wack conspiracy theorist right, he believes in gay frogs.
So then why scrub him for the net? He is already marginalized as a sensationalist conspiracy theorist. So who is next? Shapiro, Crowder, Rogan?
Once this is set how would you prevent the banning of conservative politicians?
Jones is just a wack conspiracy theorist right, he believes in gay frogs.
So then why scrub him for the net? He is already marginalized as a sensationalist conspiracy theorist. So who is next? Shapiro, Crowder, Rogan?
Once this is set how would you prevent the banning of conservative politicians?
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:14 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
Google should just route all searches originating from the White House to a special landing with only positive, glowing articles about trump.
Problem solved!
Oh yeah, because that’s what this is all about.
Real deep thinker here.
He’s actually trying to solve an issue with potentially massive implications in the future, without ANY precedent to come before it. See my post on the previous page
This post was edited on 9/22/18 at 9:15 am
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:14 am to RazorBroncs
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/3/20 at 9:29 am
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:16 am to Nguyener
quote:
You do not demand that the government transform a company because you do not like its policies.
Oh hell why not? You don't destroy a good man's reputation because you don't like his politics or even know his politics.
A new day is coming and you won't like it at all.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:17 am to PDXDawg
quote:
Yay let’s destroy businesses for political purposes! TRUMP
This gets a lot of downvotes, but can you imagine this board’s reaction if Obama had done something similar? I don’t know.... like using the IRS to target political opposition groups?
This small gov’t Rs are a fricking joke.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:27 am to SquirrelyBama
Thank you, have been weighing this conundrum a long time now.
At some point this is going to have to be worked out, seeing as how we’re rapidly progressing into an internet based culture.
Think about in 10-20 years when we are just about at the equivalent of everyone having a WiFi receiver in their head; social media has become more of a VR experience and you hang out with friends in real time, every transaction is via the web, our cars are connected and most likely driving / guiding themselves with it, and we can receive news and info at any time, anywhere, without a device.
Do we REALLY want 1 or 2 companies, with a penchant for pushing political (or ANY) beliefs on its users, to own a majority of that? The power and influence the leaders at those companies would hold would be as great or greater than the president or any of our elected leaders. That’s why something has to be done about them silencing the political and market competition soon, but effectively.
IMHO this is a totally unique issue that doesn’t fall into the previously established antitrust or monopoly rulings.
At some point this is going to have to be worked out, seeing as how we’re rapidly progressing into an internet based culture.
Think about in 10-20 years when we are just about at the equivalent of everyone having a WiFi receiver in their head; social media has become more of a VR experience and you hang out with friends in real time, every transaction is via the web, our cars are connected and most likely driving / guiding themselves with it, and we can receive news and info at any time, anywhere, without a device.
Do we REALLY want 1 or 2 companies, with a penchant for pushing political (or ANY) beliefs on its users, to own a majority of that? The power and influence the leaders at those companies would hold would be as great or greater than the president or any of our elected leaders. That’s why something has to be done about them silencing the political and market competition soon, but effectively.
IMHO this is a totally unique issue that doesn’t fall into the previously established antitrust or monopoly rulings.
This post was edited on 9/22/18 at 9:32 am
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:28 am to ninthward
quote:
if those platforms are violating rights of conservatives
You have a right protected by the federal government to have your opinion hosted and unfiltered on a social media website? Where is that right listed?
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:33 am to Nguyener
quote:The first one.
You have a right protected by the federal government to have your opinion hosted and unfiltered on a social media website? Where is that right listed?
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:35 am to CoachMoorGut
quote:
If you run a business and you can't understand the impact that Social Media has you are either willfully ignorant or fricking stupid.
I guess. As far as I know, while Twitter and Facebook are selectively choosing which political opinions to promote (which I do have a problem with) I have yet to see evidence that they are selectively targeting non-political advertising from conservative businesses and promoting liberal businesses instead.
You cannot demand federal government Bureaucracy be created because a social media platform aligns it self with a political party you do not agree with in my opinion. And no one has yet to explain why that should be so.
Eventually the Progressives will get back into office. Do we want to have set them up with the tools to regulate these platforms? I do not think so.
As for me being "willfully ignorant or fricking stupid". I am not. I advertise on social media. I ran a business before social media rose to prominence in American Culture. I run one now and I'll still be running one if social media implodes on itself.
I do not understand the vitriol and insults my opinions are met with. All I asked was to have a discussion about what makes social media so important. 2 or 3 people gave me good answers. At least 10 of you decided to just make unnecessary inflamatory comments.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:36 am to ninthward
quote:
The first one.
The first amendment is a protection against government suppression or criminal persecution for your speech. It is not a cart Blanche right to be able to say whatever you want wherever you want to say it.
Facebook and Twitter are not the government and them deciding to delete your post is not a violation of your first amendment rights.
How do you argue that it is?
This post was edited on 9/22/18 at 9:38 am
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:37 am to Icansee4miles
quote:
Standard Oil was a private business too...
And? Were they refusing to allow liberals to buy gas?
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:39 am to Boatshoes
Alphabet and Amazon need to be broken up and it has absolutely zero to do with what Trump said 
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:41 am to bamarep
quote:
I would love for someone to rationally explain to me how Facebook is important enough
Bc it has become the lifeblood of human interaction and information. It tracks people via location, tracks their information, and plays on brain chemistry through self affirmations. It is a bigger tool of control than people realize.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:46 am to ninthward
quote:
The first one.
This isn't a first amendment situation.
In fact, government acting on their discrimination is a first amendment violation.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:47 am to bamarep
I find it hilarious that the same people that think monopolies are bad when talking about social media, but are ok when talking about ISP's and net neutrality.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:48 am to Ollieoxenfree99
quote:
Bc it has become the lifeblood of human interaction and information. It tracks people via location, tracks their information, and plays on brain chemistry through self affirmations. It is a bigger tool of control than people realize.
Or, you could just cancel it altogether.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 9:48 am to ninthward
quote:
You have a right protected by the federal government to have your opinion hosted and unfiltered on a social media website? Where is that right listed?
The first one.
Idiot 
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News