Phx-Suns.Net

Interesting take on this bill.

I don't care about Don Lemon, tbh.

This resonate with anyone?

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:12 pm

I don't care about Don Lemon, tbh.

Oh, since you don't care, it doesn't matter. Got it.

It's not even the point. Musk rails against cancel culture but he's the canceler.

Musk is a toddler. Trump is a toddler. Two peas in a bush.

Superbone wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:17 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:12 pm

I don't care about Don Lemon, tbh.

Oh, since you don't care, it doesn't matter. Got it.

It's not even the point. Musk rails against cancel culture but he's the canceler.

From what Musk said, he was disappointed in Lemon's format. He thought he was going to be a little different than what he was in CNN, but it was more of the same. He also said that Zucker was writing his questions, which seemed unlikely to me. I just don't think Don is all that smart, and having the same format is another proof of that. He wasn't banned from posting on X, just voided the contract between them. So if a journalist is let go, is that cancelling them? I think they are cancelled when they aren't allowed on the platform at all, and we have a lot of examples of that in the past.

Here is an actual example of censorship and cancel culture:

You've been doing this thing lately where you post tweets that purport to show some bombshell document or story, but they don't link to the story in any way. In many cases they include 1-2 screenshots that claim to be of that story, but that's it. This is low-quality content. We can't look at the supposed source ourselves to verify or refute the person's claims. The tweet above is a classic example of it. "Mike Benz Cyber" claims to show some sort of documents from USAID. Can't he link to them or include the actual document / page in some way?

You could actually click on the tweet to learn more, but that might be too much to ask.

https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/ ... itiatives/

"Foundation for Freedom Online .com"? Pass.

The tweet itself has a picture of the document too. If you don't want to click on the link to read the article, why complain about it? It's silly, just complaining to complain.

As everyone is so up in arms about and for Don Lemon and think that Musk is censoring him.

ACLU Slams House for Latest Plan to Ban TikTok and Stifle Free Speech
March 5, 2024 6:00 pm
WASHINGTON — The House Energy and Commerce Committee announced it would be voting on a bill this Thursday that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States. This bill, which was introduced by Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), would violate the First Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of Americans who use the app to communicate and express themselves daily.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/acl ... ree-speech

It does seem like we agree that this particular Tiktok ban bill is junk and should not be passed. Maybe we have slightly different objections to it, but it sounds like we both don't like it and don't think the Senate should approve it. I do have some big concerns about Tiktok and what China's government must be doing with American account and usage data, as well as how they choose to shape the content and algorithms behind the app and what people will see. But this bill is rushed and too blunt and crude and doesn't really address the issue, and it seems to trample on too many American freedoms and values to get its outcome. And it seems like even if this bill passed, some slimy group of rich American business clowns would just buy US Tiktok and begin scavenging through that same user data for the same sort of nefarious purposes. So I'm a "no" on it.

Also, geez, can you think of a faster way to turn off young voters than to try to ban their favorite addictive social media app? Are these clowns even trying to get re-elected any more? Why don't they ban online porn, hamburgers, and Adderall next?

I've seen some posts online saying that what we really need isn't a ban on this or that social app, but rather, a stronger set of individual privacy laws that would govern what kinds of data companies/apps are allowed to keep on us, what they're allowed to do with the data, and more. That would cover most everything we're worried about with Tiktok as well as any other grubby social media company like Facebook/Meta, Twitter/X, Snap, and so on. I'd favor that. The amount of data and unfettered use of that data is a growing concern imo, especially as AI becomes more mainstream.

I agree with you on this, and probably for many or all of the same reasons.

Like an Internet Bill of Rights?

This is a douchebag.

Another opinion about the Tiktok ban:

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:48 am

This is a douchebag.

Crenshaw is a douchebag because he ... doesn't think American intelligence agencies "manipulate" Americans? So if a Congressman doesn't ascribe to the same conspiracy theories you do, he's a douchebag?

He's a douchebag for a lot of other reasons.

Like that eye patch, right?

Elon is just openly a Republican and Trump supporter now.