Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Quid pro Joe?

Quid pro Joe?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
42 Posts 12 Posters 434 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • jon-nycJ Offline
    jon-nycJ Offline
    jon-nyc
    wrote on last edited by
    #33

    Frum's take:

    You were warned.

    JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
    • AxtremusA Axtremus

      @George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:

      @Jolly said in Quid pro Joe?:

      Platforms.

      Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

      As Ax and others have said, "If you don't like what Facebook and Twitter are doing, establish your own platform."

      It's a nice concept, but these two behemoths are well-established, and everyone uses them. They are de-facto platforms, and they hold absolute censorship power over those who post on those platforms.

      In the early 20th century, there were monopolies which controlled communications via copper wires. They controlled access, but not content.

      Today, content, what you say, is restricted.

      They are private businesses. It’s pitiful to see “conservatives” like @Jolly who argued that a cake baker should be allowed to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex wedding now wants to deny other private businesses the right to refuse publishing/replicating specific contents using their private platforms. The likes of Twitter and Facebook don’t owe you shit.

      I am sympathetic to anti-monopoly arguments to break these behemoths into separate, smaller businesses. You are welcome to take your media consummation business elsewhere. You are welcome to build competing businesses. But I have no sympathy for giving you power to dictate how other private businesses should decide what opinions to publish/distribute on their platform.

      LarryL Offline
      LarryL Offline
      Larry
      wrote on last edited by
      #34

      @Axtremus said in Quid pro Joe?:

      @George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:

      @Jolly said in Quid pro Joe?:

      Platforms.

      Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

      As Ax and others have said, "If you don't like what Facebook and Twitter are doing, establish your own platform."

      It's a nice concept, but these two behemoths are well-established, and everyone uses them. They are de-facto platforms, and they hold absolute censorship power over those who post on those platforms.

      In the early 20th century, there were monopolies which controlled communications via copper wires. They controlled access, but not content.

      Today, content, what you say, is restricted.

      They are private businesses. It’s pitiful to see “conservatives” like @Jolly who argued that a cake baker should be allowed to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex wedding now wants to deny other private businesses the right to refuse publishing/replicating specific contents using their private platforms. The likes of Twitter and Facebook don’t owe you shit.

      I am sympathetic to anti-monopoly arguments to break these behemoths into separate, smaller businesses. You are welcome to take your media consummation business elsewhere. You are welcome to build competing businesses. But I have no sympathy for giving you power to dictate how other private businesses should decide what opinions to publish/distribute on their platform.

      You never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you are.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nyc
        wrote on last edited by
        #35

        Meanwhile, from the Post's owner:

        https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-owner-rupert-murdoch-predicts-a-landslide-win-for-biden?ref=home

        You were warned.

        taiwan_girlT 1 Reply Last reply
        • taiwan_girlT Offline
          taiwan_girlT Offline
          taiwan_girl
          wrote on last edited by
          #36

          I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.

          But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".

          I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.

          In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).

          If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?

          JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
          • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

            Meanwhile, from the Post's owner:

            https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-owner-rupert-murdoch-predicts-a-landslide-win-for-biden?ref=home

            taiwan_girlT Offline
            taiwan_girlT Offline
            taiwan_girl
            wrote on last edited by
            #37

            @jon-nyc I thought this was funny: 555555

            QUOTE
            In response to an email inquiry for this report asking him if he believes Biden will win in a landslide and his thoughts on Trump’s handling of coronavirus, Murdoch responded, “No comment except I’ve never called Trump an idiot,”
            UNQUOTE

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

              Frum's take:

              JollyJ Offline
              JollyJ Offline
              Jolly
              wrote on last edited by
              #38

              @jon-nyc said in Quid pro Joe?:

              Frum's take:

              Good speechwriter, neocon and never-trumper.

              “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

              Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

              1 Reply Last reply
              • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

                I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.

                But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".

                I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.

                In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).

                If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?

                JollyJ Offline
                JollyJ Offline
                Jolly
                wrote on last edited by
                #39

                @taiwan_girl said in Quid pro Joe?:

                I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.

                But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".

                I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.

                In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).

                If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?

                Public service.

                “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                taiwan_girlT 1 Reply Last reply
                • JollyJ Jolly

                  @taiwan_girl said in Quid pro Joe?:

                  I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.

                  But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".

                  I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.

                  In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).

                  If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?

                  Public service.

                  taiwan_girlT Offline
                  taiwan_girlT Offline
                  taiwan_girl
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #40

                  @Jolly Makes sense. If Facebook, Twitter, etc can be agreed that they are doing a public service, then maybe they should be under government rules.

                  If I were on there side, I would be asking for something in return. For the utilities, what is the benefit that they get? No competition? Guaranteed pricing? Something else?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • George KG Offline
                    George KG Offline
                    George K
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #41

                    Twitter is blocking today's follow-up story as well:

                    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • George KG Offline
                      George KG Offline
                      George K
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #42

                      More blockage:

                      Restored:

                      Looks like the Streisand effect is really taking hold.

                      "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                      The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups