So Zuckerberg can read which way the political winds blow. Big deal. Does anybody honestly think he'd be making these adjustments to his sails if Kamala would have won the WH? I mean yeah it's better than him not doing it, but he didn't all of the sudden find a treasure chest full of principles. Verdict: yawn, and Facebook still sucks.
So Zuckerberg can read which way the political winds blow. Big deal. Does anybody honestly think he'd be making these adjustments to his sails if Kamala would have won the WH? I mean yeah it's better than him not doing it, but he didn't all of the sudden find a treasure chest full of principles. Verdict: yawn, and Facebook still sucks.
People who are unprincipled like Zuckerberg will always make decisions for the wrong reasons. You can definitely call them out and hold it against them, but it's a fundamental and immutable character flaw. Still, I'd rather Zuckerberg be on the right side of the free speech debate regardless of his reason.
Edit: Ken Klippenstein made the point that Facebook/Meta's content moderation policies could still be used to censor anything from the Russia laptop story (stolen info) to recent reporting on Syria (violent non-state actors) to sympathetic reporting on J6 defendants (glorification of dangerous individuals), so maybe I spoke too soon on Zuck's position on the free speech debate. See:
It's great that his heart grew three sizes the day Trump was elected, but he'll go back to his old ways as soon as it is convenient to do so. At least we can enjoy the next 4 years.
And if recent history serves as a precedent, our ratings among national freedom of press, safest countries, most peaceful countries, healthiest countries, and happiest countries will continue to plummet further, just as they have done under both cartel parties. We won't have national health care, but we will have increased corruption, increased shootings by police and will continue to wage undeclared wars...all ruled by an oligarchy without actual democracy or real consent of the governed.
You could be right. All unhappy outcomes are more likely if Trump supporters play to type as goo-goo dolls. He needs constant scrutiny and supervision, like all those in power. Dems will be happy to see things turn to crap.
Fine tuning personal subscriptions to include journalism's actual truth speakers, creating a grounded truth/fact based national conversation and departing the psyop is a first step forward. ATW/Monday night livestream conversations are beginning to acknowledge and dissect the manipulation/lie that has subsumed the American national conversation. I hope they continue to do so.
After thinking about this a little more, and I don't believe the censorship complex will go back to fact checkers. The public trust is gone, and that trick won't work anymore. Zuck probably had to change course anyways as facebook's relevance is slipping. Who still uses that site in this day and age?
Instead they will probably game community notes with fake accounts and/or AI to manufacture the illusion of truth. Musk will probably do the same if he hasn't already.
Oh my goodness this is SO offensive. Everyone knows that leopards can identify as tigers and anybody who points out that the leopards' spots are not in fact stripes are Leopardists who have to be censored and cancelled! Have you not learned anything from the last decade of neoMarxist indoctrination? Expect an FBI swat team to arrive on your doorstep any minute now... ЁЯШВ
IтАЩm just hoping he removes all the censorship on topics like Chemtrails that Americans are seeing all across the skies. If he does, then maybe we can have a chance to have some clean skies again:
As a former military/current airline pilot, I can assure there is no тАЬchemtrailтАЭ switch in any cockpit other than maybe a crop dusterтАжseriously peopleтАжЁЯЩД
Jet exhaust would have the same sort of nasties in it as auto exhaust - just a little different, because jet fuel is different - and I gather they're even less efficient.
The contrails, as such, are just water vapor, like clouds, and even reflect some sunlight back to space. I believe the theory is that they're being used to dispose of noxious chemicals by dispersal. Unfortunately, this has a certain plausibility based on typical industrial behavior, and it wouldn't mean a control in the cockpit. However, it should be detectable by any competent lab, so I don't consider it credible.
Agreed. I know nothing about the issue itself, but for someone to toss that tired old 2016-"tin-foil-hat" canard as an insult instantly tells me that George the Zero, having ventured out of the intellectual cobwebs of his ideological museum, has nothing new or valid to say.
IтАЩm looked into chemtrails as well. I vividly remember getting into enormous flame wars about it back in 2006 because I thought it was the silliest thing ever.
Nowadays IтАЩm less certain. Contrails and the alleged chemtrails are distinct phenomena and they have not been debunked. IтАЩd like to hear more.
No. Just no. First of all, neither of those endorsements impresses me in the least. Trump is an idiot and RFK Jr. is a nutjob.
And chemtrails are just ... a tinfoil-hat masturbatory fantasy. Like "Jewish space lasers", etc.
No thanks.
BTW, in case there's any question, in light of what this discussion here is really about, if it were up to me as the owner or moderator or whatever of an online forum, I would never, ever censor statements the likes of yours here, no matter how meshuggah they may be. Free speech foreva!
How constructive. Thoughtful, too, because it takes the kind of extraordinary perceptiveness you so obviously have to have realized that any mediocrity with no previous political experience can get elected President of the United States.
"...and RFK is a nutjob." I'm willing to believe it, but I have been intrigued that the nutjob lead the successful effort to clean up the Hudson, which as an act of citizenship which rises to the level of statesmanship may not have been as important as Hoover's leading the relief of Belgian starvation after World War I., but is maybe one division lower. The nutjob has also managed to gather around him extremely impressive people who believe, as so many of us do, that corporate agriculture and the medical/death complex in the United States should be challenged.
Please continue to grace us with your carefully expressed thoughts.
If you have visual access to the sky wherever you are, you may want to look up at the sky occasionally and take note of all the criss-crossing parallel lines of chemtrails created by small aircraft spraying whatever it is they spray. It's happening all over Texas, and I suspect it's also happening in places with less big sky.
Look, pal, I've seen plenty of planes traverse the sky plenty of times.
Those plumes they leave behind are properly called CONTRAILS. Which consist mostly of water vapor (H20).
They're not "spraying" shit. That's the fantastical supposition of folks, apparently like yourself, who are susceptible to grandiose thinking that "they" (who "they" are I have no fucking idea) are out to get YOU.
George тАФ You make me think of the proverbial foreign visitor to Yankee Stadium in 1927, who comments that the fat guy jogging around the bases canтАЩt be a good athlete. тАЬFat guy?тАЭ тАЬYes, the fat guy with the numeral 3 on his back!тАЭ
Congrats on the second thought. Zuck revealed his true colors with the founding of FB. Insecure geek, now with billions. He's the SOB we see, but there are plenty of others with lower public profiles. Plenty of 'educated' folks believe the lower orders are by definition worth less than their betters - and are keen to treat us accordingly.
I'm no fan of Facebook, but there is the issue of the section 230 exemption, and it plays big in which way the politcal winds blow. Zuckerberg and others literally exist by the government's good graces. I don't think people understand that all it takes is a quiet decision, by the gov, not to protect Facebook from massive lawsuits and that's it. The end. And the legal action wouldn't just start from day one, lawyers would mine Facebook for any and all possible claims. I believe it would be a feeding frenzy fueled by huge opportunity.
Social media is violating a legal standard that exists in the US so it can continue to operate. The gov is saying to social media, "We know that you are violating the law in a way that would get you sued, but we're going to protect you from that litigation, for now, so you can make money, but you best stay in our good graces or we'll pull the rug out from under you."
You're probably like most people. I've done some reading on this, and I still only get the basics, and I may be a little off the mark in some areas, but here's the deal: entities that publish other people's words for public viewing using the public "airwaves", can be held legally liable for those words. Facebook could be considered a publisher, just like the NY Times publishes editorials. If someone liables or victimizes another person and the Times publishes it, the law allows the Times to be sued along with the writer. But Facebook gets a pass (Section 230 exemption), so people are able to post death threats, rape threats, horrible lies, whatever, and because the gov holds sway for the pass, they got full use for propaganda, misinformation, etc, by using veiled threats to rescind the section 230 exemption. Also, I believe the social media companies believed the government when it made those veiled threats. I think they feared the gov.
It's really a huge friggin mess that must be cleaned up internally and by those that use it. I doubt that'll ever happen as long as it's paid for by ads, but who knows.
I'd only add that the exemption protects social media because they claim they don't have the same editorial influence/control as a newspaper does. I.E., they should not be held liable for what someone else says using their service. They can remove posts that violate their "standards" or are obscene. The way they have silenced some voices but not others violates the "in good faith" clause the legislation intended.
True, and the claim that they do not have the same control as a newspaper is a valid one. However, I think the objective was that they should develop that control. Exemptions to law are considered temporary. One could say that the social media companies violated the good faith first and opened the door for what happened by sitting on their collective butts and doing nothing but gettin' rich.
It seems that social media posts are no different than a "letter to the editor" or paid ad in a newspaper. Don't the newspapers "disclaim" that content?
The newspapers cannot disclaim any harm caused to a person, company, etc, by one of those letters to the editor. If someone can show harm caused by a published letter, the newspaper is on the hook - and they got the money, unlike some dufus that just wanted to get back at his ex-wife, or his ex-workplace, or whatever.
Add: And I'm not picking on that dufus either, because I've been that dufus. We've probably all been that dufus once. I admit that in my younger years, I would've probably weaponized social media.
01/07/25: "... places like the New York Times (тАЬMeta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That FalseтАЭ) ..."
Note that the corrupt NY Times automatically assumes the validity and honesty, the integrity of the "fact-checkers," who by now even the dumbest cluck knows were paid --- often surreptitiously by the U.S. government --- political Stalinist censors.
Biden is dead. What we are about find out will sicken millions. Those responsible will be on the run.
Which brings us to Zuckerberg, the mouse-louse.
If he had had the courage to say the above two years ago, OK. Today? Too late. Really, who does he think he's fooling? And he's probably dense enough to think that he'll be able to bribe his way into the Trump White House (to wit, his contemptible $1M check made out to the January 20th inauguration committee).
Precisely. We'd all be Hitler and Zuck would have his head so far up the new president's keester, he'd pop out of her mouth. He's trying to that now with Trump but even with his billions Zuck has to take his turn.
Actually, he makes sense. All the actions he points out are real and he's realized that he can be part of that corruption or call for action against it.
My take on this exactly. I have a piece that goes up on this particular topic from this perspective later today at 12pm. Read here at that time if youтАЩre interested: https://stephenobisanya.substack.com
So Zuckerberg can read which way the political winds blow. Big deal. Does anybody honestly think he'd be making these adjustments to his sails if Kamala would have won the WH? I mean yeah it's better than him not doing it, but he didn't all of the sudden find a treasure chest full of principles. Verdict: yawn, and Facebook still sucks.
People who are unprincipled like Zuckerberg will always make decisions for the wrong reasons. You can definitely call them out and hold it against them, but it's a fundamental and immutable character flaw. Still, I'd rather Zuckerberg be on the right side of the free speech debate regardless of his reason.
Edit: Ken Klippenstein made the point that Facebook/Meta's content moderation policies could still be used to censor anything from the Russia laptop story (stolen info) to recent reporting on Syria (violent non-state actors) to sympathetic reporting on J6 defendants (glorification of dangerous individuals), so maybe I spoke too soon on Zuck's position on the free speech debate. See:
https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/dangerous-individuals-organizations/
It's great that his heart grew three sizes the day Trump was elected, but he'll go back to his old ways as soon as it is convenient to do so. At least we can enjoy the next 4 years.
two years. If history serves as precedent, Dem's will take over at least one house of Congress in 2026.
And if recent history serves as a precedent, our ratings among national freedom of press, safest countries, most peaceful countries, healthiest countries, and happiest countries will continue to plummet further, just as they have done under both cartel parties. We won't have national health care, but we will have increased corruption, increased shootings by police and will continue to wage undeclared wars...all ruled by an oligarchy without actual democracy or real consent of the governed.
Yep. The greed principle rules the roost.
https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/billionaires-dangle-free-speech-like?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=476450&post_id=154362792&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=eov1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
You could be right. All unhappy outcomes are more likely if Trump supporters play to type as goo-goo dolls. He needs constant scrutiny and supervision, like all those in power. Dems will be happy to see things turn to crap.
Fine tuning personal subscriptions to include journalism's actual truth speakers, creating a grounded truth/fact based national conversation and departing the psyop is a first step forward. ATW/Monday night livestream conversations are beginning to acknowledge and dissect the manipulation/lie that has subsumed the American national conversation. I hope they continue to do so.
After thinking about this a little more, and I don't believe the censorship complex will go back to fact checkers. The public trust is gone, and that trick won't work anymore. Zuck probably had to change course anyways as facebook's relevance is slipping. Who still uses that site in this day and age?
Instead they will probably game community notes with fake accounts and/or AI to manufacture the illusion of truth. Musk will probably do the same if he hasn't already.
> "Who still uses that site in this day and age?"
What, are you fucking kidding?
The answer is in the billions. (But not me; I'm pure of heart.)
ЁЯдн
Something about leopards never changing their spots.?
Oh my goodness this is SO offensive. Everyone knows that leopards can identify as tigers and anybody who points out that the leopards' spots are not in fact stripes are Leopardists who have to be censored and cancelled! Have you not learned anything from the last decade of neoMarxist indoctrination? Expect an FBI swat team to arrive on your doorstep any minute now... ЁЯШВ
LOL!
Nobody тАФ I have no doubts about ZuckerbergтАЩs sincerity.
Firing the factcheckers and crowdsourcing community notes will save him money.
IтАЩm just hoping he removes all the censorship on topics like Chemtrails that Americans are seeing all across the skies. If he does, then maybe we can have a chance to have some clean skies again:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/there-is-no-greater-threat-than-chemtrails
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/a-cleanourskies-campaign
As a former military/current airline pilot, I can assure there is no тАЬchemtrailтАЭ switch in any cockpit other than maybe a crop dusterтАжseriously peopleтАжЁЯЩД
Thank you for a believable professional confirmation.
Facts and direct knowledge have no place here. You get that, right?
Jet exhaust would have the same sort of nasties in it as auto exhaust - just a little different, because jet fuel is different - and I gather they're even less efficient.
The contrails, as such, are just water vapor, like clouds, and even reflect some sunlight back to space. I believe the theory is that they're being used to dispose of noxious chemicals by dispersal. Unfortunately, this has a certain plausibility based on typical industrial behavior, and it wouldn't mean a control in the cockpit. However, it should be detectable by any competent lab, so I don't consider it credible.
Noxious chemicals are dumped in the local river by the mob. Saves money on airplanes.
Puleeze; keep your chemtrails and your tinfoil hat out of this discussion.
George, you should read the article тАФ plenty of people are on this issue тАФ even Trump and RFK Jr
Agreed. I know nothing about the issue itself, but for someone to toss that tired old 2016-"tin-foil-hat" canard as an insult instantly tells me that George the Zero, having ventured out of the intellectual cobwebs of his ideological museum, has nothing new or valid to say.
I don't toss that epithet out carelessly, having "looked into" chemtrails and found them to be totally without merit.
Tell me, would you have the same reaction if I replied similarly to someone who claimed the Earth was flat?
Not all claims that people make are worthy of further examination.
IтАЩm looked into chemtrails as well. I vividly remember getting into enormous flame wars about it back in 2006 because I thought it was the silliest thing ever.
Nowadays IтАЩm less certain. Contrails and the alleged chemtrails are distinct phenomena and they have not been debunked. IтАЩd like to hear more.
Nope, wrong; they've been totally debunked. You're looking into a deep, dark rabbit hole here. Good luck with that.
No. Just no. First of all, neither of those endorsements impresses me in the least. Trump is an idiot and RFK Jr. is a nutjob.
And chemtrails are just ... a tinfoil-hat masturbatory fantasy. Like "Jewish space lasers", etc.
No thanks.
BTW, in case there's any question, in light of what this discussion here is really about, if it were up to me as the owner or moderator or whatever of an online forum, I would never, ever censor statements the likes of yours here, no matter how meshuggah they may be. Free speech foreva!
"...Trump is an idiot..."
How constructive. Thoughtful, too, because it takes the kind of extraordinary perceptiveness you so obviously have to have realized that any mediocrity with no previous political experience can get elected President of the United States.
"...and RFK is a nutjob." I'm willing to believe it, but I have been intrigued that the nutjob lead the successful effort to clean up the Hudson, which as an act of citizenship which rises to the level of statesmanship may not have been as important as Hoover's leading the relief of Belgian starvation after World War I., but is maybe one division lower. The nutjob has also managed to gather around him extremely impressive people who believe, as so many of us do, that corporate agriculture and the medical/death complex in the United States should be challenged.
Please continue to grace us with your carefully expressed thoughts.
OK, how about this? RFK Jr. is a nutjob who has some redeeming qualities. (I totally agree with his fight with Big Pharma and Big Ag.)
That's better.
If you have visual access to the sky wherever you are, you may want to look up at the sky occasionally and take note of all the criss-crossing parallel lines of chemtrails created by small aircraft spraying whatever it is they spray. It's happening all over Texas, and I suspect it's also happening in places with less big sky.
Look, pal, I've seen plenty of planes traverse the sky plenty of times.
Those plumes they leave behind are properly called CONTRAILS. Which consist mostly of water vapor (H20).
They're not "spraying" shit. That's the fantastical supposition of folks, apparently like yourself, who are susceptible to grandiose thinking that "they" (who "they" are I have no fucking idea) are out to get YOU.
I only see clouds shaped like bunnies. Crop dusters fly low.
George тАФ You make me think of the proverbial foreign visitor to Yankee Stadium in 1927, who comments that the fat guy jogging around the bases canтАЩt be a good athlete. тАЬFat guy?тАЭ тАЬYes, the fat guy with the numeral 3 on his back!тАЭ
Congrats on the second thought. Zuck revealed his true colors with the founding of FB. Insecure geek, now with billions. He's the SOB we see, but there are plenty of others with lower public profiles. Plenty of 'educated' folks believe the lower orders are by definition worth less than their betters - and are keen to treat us accordingly.
I'm no fan of Facebook, but there is the issue of the section 230 exemption, and it plays big in which way the politcal winds blow. Zuckerberg and others literally exist by the government's good graces. I don't think people understand that all it takes is a quiet decision, by the gov, not to protect Facebook from massive lawsuits and that's it. The end. And the legal action wouldn't just start from day one, lawyers would mine Facebook for any and all possible claims. I believe it would be a feeding frenzy fueled by huge opportunity.
Social media is violating a legal standard that exists in the US so it can continue to operate. The gov is saying to social media, "We know that you are violating the law in a way that would get you sued, but we're going to protect you from that litigation, for now, so you can make money, but you best stay in our good graces or we'll pull the rug out from under you."
Purely from a perspective of ignorance a a desire to know, what legal standard is being violated by social media?
You're probably like most people. I've done some reading on this, and I still only get the basics, and I may be a little off the mark in some areas, but here's the deal: entities that publish other people's words for public viewing using the public "airwaves", can be held legally liable for those words. Facebook could be considered a publisher, just like the NY Times publishes editorials. If someone liables or victimizes another person and the Times publishes it, the law allows the Times to be sued along with the writer. But Facebook gets a pass (Section 230 exemption), so people are able to post death threats, rape threats, horrible lies, whatever, and because the gov holds sway for the pass, they got full use for propaganda, misinformation, etc, by using veiled threats to rescind the section 230 exemption. Also, I believe the social media companies believed the government when it made those veiled threats. I think they feared the gov.
It's really a huge friggin mess that must be cleaned up internally and by those that use it. I doubt that'll ever happen as long as it's paid for by ads, but who knows.
I'd only add that the exemption protects social media because they claim they don't have the same editorial influence/control as a newspaper does. I.E., they should not be held liable for what someone else says using their service. They can remove posts that violate their "standards" or are obscene. The way they have silenced some voices but not others violates the "in good faith" clause the legislation intended.
True, and the claim that they do not have the same control as a newspaper is a valid one. However, I think the objective was that they should develop that control. Exemptions to law are considered temporary. One could say that the social media companies violated the good faith first and opened the door for what happened by sitting on their collective butts and doing nothing but gettin' rich.
It seems that social media posts are no different than a "letter to the editor" or paid ad in a newspaper. Don't the newspapers "disclaim" that content?
The newspapers cannot disclaim any harm caused to a person, company, etc, by one of those letters to the editor. If someone can show harm caused by a published letter, the newspaper is on the hook - and they got the money, unlike some dufus that just wanted to get back at his ex-wife, or his ex-workplace, or whatever.
Add: And I'm not picking on that dufus either, because I've been that dufus. We've probably all been that dufus once. I admit that in my younger years, I would've probably weaponized social media.
Agree/well said.
At least he read the tea leaves and (it appears) is course correcting. Others did not and it did not work out well.
Well said!
https://babylonbee.com/news/guy-who-said-facebook-was-not-suppressing-free-speech-announces-facebook-will-stop-suppressing-free-speech
01/07/25: "... places like the New York Times (тАЬMeta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That FalseтАЭ) ..."
Note that the corrupt NY Times automatically assumes the validity and honesty, the integrity of the "fact-checkers," who by now even the dumbest cluck knows were paid --- often surreptitiously by the U.S. government --- political Stalinist censors.
Biden is dead. What we are about find out will sicken millions. Those responsible will be on the run.
Which brings us to Zuckerberg, the mouse-louse.
If he had had the courage to say the above two years ago, OK. Today? Too late. Really, who does he think he's fooling? And he's probably dense enough to think that he'll be able to bribe his way into the Trump White House (to wit, his contemptible $1M check made out to the January 20th inauguration committee).
Zuckerberg floats out to sea in 2025. Too bad.
Exactly, but . . . Let's ride this pony while we can.
Precisely. We'd all be Hitler and Zuck would have his head so far up the new president's keester, he'd pop out of her mouth. He's trying to that now with Trump but even with his billions Zuck has to take his turn.
Actually, he makes sense. All the actions he points out are real and he's realized that he can be part of that corruption or call for action against it.
My take on this exactly. I have a piece that goes up on this particular topic from this perspective later today at 12pm. Read here at that time if youтАЩre interested: https://stephenobisanya.substack.com
No.
Good points.