The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

mpicco said:
Facebook is privately owned. I'm nowhere near their biggest fan, but I recognize they're allowed to let in or not whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It's the same case with the bakery that wouldn't make the cake for the gay wedding. Should never force anyone to do what they don't wanna do, but at the same time, people will judge them for their actions. If this move makes less conservatives use Facebook I think they're ready to take the hit.
Click to expand...
As I posted above, it's not that black and white.
 
They're growing in line with overall job growth since about 2010, yes. Their percentage is stagnant or slowly declining and near an all-time low of 8.x% of the workforce, so it's not really accurate to claim manufacturing job growth specifically. See your marketwatch link for a graph.
 
LeVeL said:
Do you think that Alex Jones should be censored? If so, should Louis Farrakhan and Linda Sarsour be censored as well? Just curious.
Click to expand...
While I do not think you can put a for-profit hatemonger, a militant black power advocate and a peaceful women's rights activist into the same bucket, what holds true is that I do not believe any of them should be censored as in banned by law from publishing - and that's what "censorship" means: The government silencing unpopular voices*.

I do not necessary think any of the three (or you or me, for that reason) has a right to publish, though, meaning that if Twitter, Facebook, The New York Times, or Fox News decide to not allow one or all of the above on their platform/in their paper/on their stations, it is their right.

In the end, for-profit corporations like Facebook have to ask themselves: Is the negative PR from allowing X on my platform a bigger threat to my bottom line than the negative PR of banning X?

*I think our German "Holocaust Denial" limit to freedom of speech is useful for our situation, but AFAIK even Jones has stayed away from that so far anyways.
 
I will not debate you on any of this, as it is, as I said, beside to point. So where's the reply to the post itself?
 
LeVeL said:
Upthread:



You just downplayed Farrakhan as a "black power advocate" - the same Farrakhan who thinks that Hitler was a "great man", disputed that Hezbollah are terrorists, has called Jews "wicked deceivers", etc. Ironic that you then mentioned Holocaust denial. You also just called Linda Sarsour a "women's rights activist", who has said that the Nation of Islam should be part of American history, called Zionism "creepy", and said that Trump tortures women and children. I think it's clear where you stand.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you tricked me into outing myself as an anti-semite by throwing me the names of two controversial US figures I have no idea about in detail.

Great move and shows how much you are interested in actual debate.
 
LeVeL said:
If you support banning far-right douchebags (e.g. Alex Jones)
Click to expand...
I don't think he would qualify as far right, his just a bit nutty.
LeVeL said:
An astonishing number of people get their news through social media channels
Click to expand...
To the point where Russia was able to use social media to sway public opinion.
 
LeVeL said:
Sure sounds like Trump is adding manufacturing jobs just like he promised...
Click to expand...

For someone supporting a guy who is all about the 'small state', 'reducing regulations' and less direct government input in the economy, you're sure giving the government a lot of credit for the end results. So which one is it? Is this Trump, aka the Government's doing, and therefor interventionism is good, or is small state deregulation good? You can't have both and switch around as best fits your narrative.

LeVeL said:
It's pretty simple - you either support censorship or you don't. If you support banning far-right douchebags (e.g. Alex Jones), then you should support banning far-left douchebags too (e.g. Farrakhan and Sarsour). If you don't support censorship, then you shouldn't support Facebook banning InfoWars.
Click to expand...

Facebook is not government owned. They are free to allow anyone to use their service under their own terms of service and free to ban anyone they feel like. Censorship is at a state-level and the only way you could call extremist idiots like Jones getting banned from Facebook on the same level is by ignoring history to the point of disrespect for the people who lived through true censorship.
Since you obviously don't know how it looks like, here's a picture of a newspaper after it went through the State's censorship in the Portuguese dictatorship around the 60s and 70s:

mw-320


Do you see the difference or should I draw more pictures for you?
 
Last edited:
Don't elevate the market as a totemical figure just because you don't know how to manage it; the market is a human interaction that has the potential to make things work smoothly and increase wealth or destroy entire societies and impoverish them. The market is a series of action-reactions based in psychology and whose end result depends on the specific conditions in which it operates. Good starting conditions, good results; bad starting conditons, bad results. A completely free market is a strong force towards dynamical redistribution of wealth, but also a strong force towards the externalization of costs to weaker people, the growth of inequalities and the loss of opportunities for many people (which, in terms, stifle growth).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top