TikTok : Give me TikTok or Give me Death !!!

[kevwun 15,936]

Anything that pisses him off is probably good.

[Dbeasy 15,128]

On 3/13/2024 at 9:48 PM, tx 3 putt said:

 

20 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The real problem with forcing them to sell TikTok is who they intend to be the buyer:

 

It's not mentioned in any of the stories covering this yet, but Mnuchin also got $1 billion from the Saudis back in 2022, so they'd likely be partners with him on this. I'm honestly less worried about the PRC using TikTok to manipulate and spy on the American public than I am letting a MAGA/Saudi partnership do the same. 

 

This issue is very complicated. On one hand just randomly banning an app, or forcing its sale, either because of foreign data collection or them trying to warp public views is a fairly random decision fraught with inconsistencies. 

On the other hand, fuck China. They ban or force modifications to US apps operating in China. 

But it’s really the bigger issue that needs to get addressed. This country must do something soon about the conflict between free speech and disinformation. That’s the real legislation that is needed.

Because right now we have government forces suppressing free speech AND peddling disinformation to silence and/or mislead the public for their own benefit, either personally or government. 

We need a set of rules that individuals and companies must follow when creating and delivering information. These rules must cover all environments: online, over the air, news, entertainment, opinion, etc. and these rules do  need to be based upon some basic values. 

[956 Worldwide 34,815]

A little bit of reality:

- China bans Google, Facebook, Twitter, Insta, and even the international version of TikTok.

- This is not about tit for tat banning. Instead we need to see that by banning these platforms, China has revealed some important information about how the PRC views tech platforms and social media and what they are for. 
 

- This banning is not due to protectionism and promoting their own industry. If nothing else, we know that the PRC is eager to attract U.S. and Western firms to do business on their terms and that our firms have no scruples about engaging on those terms. 
 

- The issue goes to the core of PRC interests and capabilities.  The PRC clearly believes that Western tech platforms are current or potential weapons of information and gray zone warfare. 
 

- AND THAT should reveal that the PRC does not view TikTok as a social media or even business tool.  It is viewed as a current or potential weapon.  This is how the PRC treats these platforms, they are asking us to believe “Google and Facebook are American weapons but OUR TikTok is just fun realtor T&A.” Please get real.

With that in mind, please explain the first amendment threat.  Or run a thought experiment — the PRC wants to place sensors in every single American home to record your interests or conversations.  And at any moment those sensors can then reprogram your TV to default to PRC state media when it’s turned on. 
 

There is no first amendment right at stake.  And the fact they haven’t reprogrammed the TVs yet is irrelevant.  The fact is that they can at any moment.

If I had a device in every home that could be an air freshener or could be a bomb depending on what button I push- do we have to wait until I start flipping the switch before we make it illegal to sell them and then disarm all the ones in place? 

[Mdhorn 5,990]

Currently, we're banning books by American writers in parts of the good ol' USA.  I'm down with banning foreign government spyware social networking platforms.   

[atomheartbevo 89,848]

3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

We need a set of rules that individuals and companies must follow when creating and delivering information. These rules must cover all environments: online, over the air, news, entertainment, opinion, etc. and these rules do  need to be based upon some basic values. 

Maybe a doctrine of some sort…call it a “fairness doctrine” perhaps?

The problem is that we have a lot of dumbasses, and it’s easy to fool these people, and harder to convince them that they’ve been fooled.

For instance, if you have a 2020 election denier in your life, maybe a sibling, parent, or cousin, or co-worker, and you ask them point blank “if the election was rigged, why won’t Trump put the information on his own website or go on Fox and produce the information for all the world to see and why hasn’t he done this in the past three years?”  You will see them struggling to come up with an answer, because they know something is off, but they are gaslighted by Republicans so hard that they can’t do it.

[atomheartbevo 89,848]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

AND THAT should reveal that the PRC does not view TikTok as a social media or even business tool.  It is viewed as a current or potential weapon.  This is how the PRC treats these platforms,

Imagine a Tiananmen Square scenario in 2024 where everybody had a small device in their pockets that let them communicate with everybody else, and allowed them to disseminate videos of the PRC government mowing down demonstrators. It would let them organize and stay on the move and potentially avoid some of the government forces, etc. 

[Boss Hogg 808]

On 3/14/2024 at 1:31 PM, Boss Hogg said:

This is a tough one for me. 

I'm generally skeptical of any legislation that gets such a blitzkrieg of coordinated support seemingly out of nowhere and from what I've seen the language is a little broad in how it describes what can be shut down. You also throw in that this does quite clearly benefit our own stateside mega data collectors and algorithm runners, so in a sense it seems a bit hyperbolic to freak out about it now.

On the other hand, the CCP is evidently quite upset about it. They also do the same thing to us although they live in an authoritarian state.

I lean towards supporting, but the way it is all happening makes me pretty uneasy. Red flags galore.

 

After giving it some more thought, I'm coming down against this. If this was really all about eliminating Chinese ownership of social media the bill could be simply and explicitly written. The fact that it isn't and the rush to pass it makes me skeptical of the motives. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,812]

On 3/15/2024 at 2:15 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Imagine a Tiananmen Square scenario in 2024 where everybody had a small device in their pockets that let them communicate with everybody else, and allowed them to disseminate videos of the PRC government mowing down demonstrators. It would let them organize and stay on the move and potentially avoid some of the government forces, etc. 

They couldn’t share video at the time but that’s a lot like how protestors used Twitter during the Arab Spring. 

[Dbeasy 15,128]

 

On 3/15/2024 at 10:01 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

A little bit of reality:

- China bans Google, Facebook, Twitter, Insta, and even the international version of TikTok.

I already posted this same point above, so I don't know if your post is directed at my post or someone else's. It seems to be at mine, so I'll respond. Also, I've spent many years working in China and running a large organization there, so I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on there.

 

On 3/15/2024 at 10:01 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

- This is not about tit for tat banning. Instead we need to see that by banning these platforms, China has revealed some important information about how the PRC views tech platforms and social media and what they are for. 

- This banning is not due to protectionism and promoting their own industry. If nothing else, we know that the PRC is eager to attract U.S. and Western firms to do business on their terms and that our firms have no scruples about engaging on those terms. 

- The issue goes to the core of PRC interests and capabilities.  The PRC clearly believes that Western tech platforms are current or potential weapons of information and gray zone warfare. 

- AND THAT should reveal that the PRC does not view TikTok as a social media or even business tool.  It is viewed as a current or potential weapon.  This is how the PRC treats these platforms, they are asking us to believe “Google and Facebook are American weapons but OUR TikTok is just fun realtor T&A.” Please get real.

With that in mind, please explain the first amendment threat.  Or run a thought experiment — the PRC wants to place sensors in every single American home to record your interests or conversations.  And at any moment those sensors can then reprogram your TV to default to PRC state media when it’s turned on. 
 

Everything you've posted is obvious. I don't disagree with any of it. Frankly, the banning won't "reveal" anything. Everyone already knows this is the situation that is happning. But, this is not the real issue. If we ban Tik Tok, it's just like banning Chinese semiconductor chips. Probably warranted. As I said above, the real issue is the creep of these types of government actions against products and services that affect in some way free speech, and the rules of comerce for those products and services. Because if there is one thing US citizens have learned over the last 200 years is that unchecked government power tends to abuse.

 

On 3/15/2024 at 10:01 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

With that in mind, please explain the first amendment threat.  Or run a thought experiment — the PRC wants to place sensors in every single American home to record your interests or conversations.  And at any moment those sensors can then reprogram your TV to default to PRC state media when it’s turned on. 
 

There is no first amendment right at stake.  And the fact they haven’t reprogrammed the TVs yet is irrelevant.  The fact is that they can at any moment.

If I had a device in every home that could be an air freshener or could be a bomb depending on what button I push- do we have to wait until I start flipping the switch before we make it illegal to sell them and then disarm all the ones in place? 

There absolutely is a first amendment and commerce question/issue. There's no need to run some thought experiment. We already have countless examples right now where, because of national security concerns, China and the US are banning or requiring alterations to products: semiconductor chips, software, etc.  The point with Tik Tok is where is the line drawn? Is this the line? Is there another line? Because theoretically every single software product produced by both countries could get banned in the future because of national security threats. And that gives the US government the ability to control free speech of any software product that they deem being used as a weapon to influence the minds of citizens, or collect personal data, or spy, etc., or unfairly ban any product for any reason under the guise of national security.  So as my post pointed out above, right now we are either on a path to potentially banning everything in the future...or maybe there can be ways to establish rules, requirements, and laws that hit at the heart of the security and free speech issues. One could argue that the banning of Tik Tok is essentially the beginning of a ban on any Chinese software product ever. Maybe that's the right decision. But it will have significant consequences for US companies operating in China that are having some level of success.

And oh by the way, because I've been a pretty strong anti-China advocate on this board since the beginning who has seen the worst of China's behavior over and over in the past 20+ years, my personal inclination is to absolutely believe the US government when they say this is all about national security.  BUT, given our government's track record for being nothing but bought politicians, I would not be surprised at all that a big part of all of this is also because some powerful tech interests are damn scared of Tik Tok's potential to take control of billions and billions of dollars at stake via social media applications. Facebook sucks, YouTube has matured, SnapChat has plateaued, and Tik Tok is it right now. It's naive to believe it's all about just national security.  Just seeing Trump flip to supporting the app because of his relationship with a Tik Tok minority owner tells us everything.

 

[956 Worldwide 34,815]

We’re just going to be at an impasse if you can admit that everything is true (the PRC views social media in general and TikTok in particular as a weapon to be used against us) but we should just accept that for various reasons or that the real danger is ourselves and not the giant nation that has declared they want to outcompete us. 
 

I am completely for smart decoupling from the PRC, especially in cases where there is massive financial interest from U.S. companies to stay engaged.  That’s just leverage for the enemy. Like Russia, the PRC is already at war with us. There is not a bright line between kinetic and gray zone operations.  They are mutually supporting and reinforcing.  I am in favor of trading financial casualties for real casualties. 

Edited March 18 by 956 Worldwide

[TwiceHorn 31,595]

There are, or have been, reasonably effective judicial means for reviewing government decisions and actions with potential First Amendment or other constitutional concerns done under the guise of national security. 

I am not terribly worried about government overreach here. 

[Boss Hogg 808]

So why not have a more targeted bill? TikTok is a unique threat. Shouldn't be hard to write a narrow bill that deals with the problem now and doesn't hand a bunch of power over to future executive branches. 

[Boss Hogg 808]

Maybe one of the legal team here could help me with the reading of this. 

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/HR 7520 - Pallone.pdf

Who exactly is excluded from the bill?

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34,815]

7 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

Maybe one of the legal team here could help me with the reading of this. 

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/HR 7520 - Pallone.pdf

Who exactly is excluded from the bill?

 

 

It excludes all companies that are not making personal data of Americans available to the following nations:

[High Plains Drifter 11,053]

On 3/14/2024 at 12:22 PM, wildcat09 said:

The real problem with forcing them to sell TikTok is who they intend to be the buyer:

 

It's not mentioned in any of the stories covering this yet, but Mnuchin also got $1 billion from the Saudis back in 2022, so they'd likely be partners with him on this. I'm honestly less worried about the PRC using TikTok to manipulate and spy on the American public than I am letting a MAGA/Saudi partnership do the same. 

 

 

 

why is that motherfucker not in prison?

 

 

 

[TexasEd 8,077]

On 3/13/2024 at 6:34 PM, HenryJames said:

What’s the opposite of dopamine? Because that’s Surly.

On 3/13/2024 at 6:38 PM, Js1 said:

Misery. Dread. Melancholy 

Gloom, despair, and agony on me

Deep dark depression, excessive misery

If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all

Gloom, despair, and agony on me

 

 

 

Edited March 18 by TexasEd

[Boss Hogg 808]

49 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It excludes all companies that are not making personal data of Americans available to the following nations:

Actually I don't think that's what those exclusions mean. They're related to the definition of “data broker”

 

[pyrohornIII 4,823]

On 3/15/2024 at 9:19 AM, Dbeasy said:

 

This issue is very complicated. On one hand just randomly banning an app, or forcing its sale, either because of foreign data collection or them trying to warp public views is a fairly random decision fraught with inconsistencies. 

On the other hand, fuck China. They ban or force modifications to US apps operating in China. 

But it’s really the bigger issue that needs to get addressed. This country must do something soon about the conflict between free speech and disinformation. That’s the real legislation that is needed.

Because right now we have government forces suppressing free speech AND peddling disinformation to silence and/or mislead the public for their own benefit, either personally or government. 

We need a set of rules that individuals and companies must follow when creating and delivering information. These rules must cover all environments: online, over the air, news, entertainment, opinion, etc. and these rules do  need to be based upon some basic values. 

Yes, some standards need to be set.   But I think something like the Hays Commission would ensue.  They tried to clean up Hollywood and in so doing they set up their own propaganda machine, which in turn stifled a lot of artistic talent and concepts.   So, it has to be done right.

The problem is Trump has made even facts questionable.   And a sizeable chunk of people look to the Bible as the only fact.  Yeah, there's a lot to untangle here.  But then we do it in a lot of other things like football and business, so just nut up and put groups in categories and have them abide within a set of rules to stay in that category.  That would separate ONN and Fox from actual news reporting agencies.  And once those standards are set, then maybe MSM starts to lean harder back into the facts and away from the MTG type carwreck sensationalistic reporting they feel they have to provide to compete with Fox and that ilk.  

I think back to the day when you stood in line at the grocer and could choose from Time, or LIFE or tabloids.  We used to thumb through the tabloids for the amusement and take home a Time of Newsweek for the real truth.   Somehow, we need to bring back that basic knowledge of truth from bullshit.   Why is Snopes so highly regarded?  How do we bottle that?  

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

13 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Yes, some standards need to be set.   But I think something like the Hays Commission would ensue.  They tried to clean up Hollywood and in so doing they set up their own propaganda machine, which in turn stifled a lot of artistic talent and concepts.   So, it has to be done right.

The problem is Trump has made even facts questionable.   And a sizeable chunk of people look to the Bible as the only fact.  Yeah, there's a lot to untangle here.  But then we do it in a lot of other things like football and business, so just nut up and put groups in categories and have them abide within a set of rules to stay in that category.  That would separate ONN and Fox from actual news reporting agencies.  And once those standards are set, then maybe MSM starts to lean harder back into the facts and away from the MTG type carwreck sensationalistic reporting they feel they have to provide to compete with Fox and that ilk.  

I think back to the day when you stood in line at the grocer and could choose from Time, or LIFE or tabloids.  We used to thumb through the tabloids for the amusement and take home a Time of Newsweek for the real truth.   Somehow, we need to bring back that basic knowledge of truth from bullshit.   Why is Snopes so highly regarded?  How do we bottle that?  

 

I said it a while back on the previous scat site and got laughed out of the room, but we need a distinction between press and media. Press is a protected class by the Constitution (that darn thing again) and should be treated as such. Real journos have to go to school and be trained for their craft - make it a profession that requires licensing just as you would an architect, doctor, lawyer, etc. Make continuing education part mandatory, enforced by a regulatory board that creates standards and practices. Just as with any professional organization, if you do your job poorly enough, you can no longer hold a license. That's The Press. EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park.

[Dbeasy 15,128]

39 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I said it a while back on the previous scat site and got laughed out of the room, but we need a distinction between press and media. Press is a protected class by the Constitution (that darn thing again) and should be treated as such. Real journos have to go to school and be trained for their craft - make it a profession that requires licensing just as you would an architect, doctor, lawyer, etc. Make continuing education part mandatory, enforced by a regulatory board that creates standards and practices. Just as with any professional organization, if you do your job poorly enough, you can no longer hold a license. That's The Press. EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park.

Yes. By the way, watched a Netflix or Prime documentary on the history of the National Inquirer and it was a mob-owned early precursor to propaganda and was partially responsible for blowing up Gary Hart and elevating Trump. Trump used to even call in his own stories about himself. 

[pyrohornIII 4,823]

Yeah. David Dennison.  What a dipshit.

 

[softlynow 1,840]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Yes, some standards need to be set.   But I think something like the Hays Commission would ensue.  They tried to clean up Hollywood and in so doing they set up their own propaganda machine, which in turn stifled a lot of artistic talent and concepts.   So, it has to be done right.

The problem is Trump has made even facts questionable.   And a sizeable chunk of people look to the Bible as the only fact.  Yeah, there's a lot to untangle here.  But then we do it in a lot of other things like football and business, so just nut up and put groups in categories and have them abide within a set of rules to stay in that category.  That would separate ONN and Fox from actual news reporting agencies.  And once those standards are set, then maybe MSM starts to lean harder back into the facts and away from the MTG type carwreck sensationalistic reporting they feel they have to provide to compete with Fox and that ilk.  

I think back to the day when you stood in line at the grocer and could choose from Time, or LIFE or tabloids.  We used to thumb through the tabloids for the amusement and take home a Time of Newsweek for the real truth.   Somehow, we need to bring back that basic knowledge of truth from bullshit.   Why is Snopes so highly regarded?  How do we bottle that?  

 

What you're talking about is reputation. Reputation is like culture, in the sense that it is organic and resistant to the stifling hand of regulation or inartful leadership. Many of our journalists have spent the last 2-3 decades chasing soundbytes, headlines and clicks. They're not interested in reputation, because they answer, more and more, to the MBAs looking at the next quarter's earnings.

As with so many things these days, the problem is the primacy of capitalism in every aspect of our culture.

 

51 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I said it a while back on the previous scat site and got laughed out of the room, but we need a distinction between press and media. Press is a protected class by the Constitution (that darn thing again) and should be treated as such. Real journos have to go to school and be trained for their craft - make it a profession that requires licensing just as you would an architect, doctor, lawyer, etc. Make continuing education part mandatory, enforced by a regulatory board that creates standards and practices. Just as with any professional organization, if you do your job poorly enough, you can no longer hold a license. That's The Press. EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park.

Disclaimers would only amplify the appeal of the bad actors in media. A stamon media as "bad for you" would work the same way a warning label on cigarettes or the parental advisory on an album, game or tv show. Hell, water in a can called Liquid Death sells for precisely because it has a dangerous sounding name.

[pyrohornIII 4,823]

16 minutes ago, softlynow said:

What you're talking about is reputation. Reputation is like culture, in the sense that it is organic and resistant to the stifling hand of regulation or inartful leadership. Many of our journalists have spent the last 2-3 decades chasing soundbytes, headlines and clicks. They're not interested in reputation, because they answer, more and more, to the MBAs looking at the next quarter's earnings.

As with so many things these days, the problem is the primacy of capitalism in every aspect of our culture.

 

Disclaimers would only amplify the appeal of the bad actors in media. A stamon media as "bad for you" would work the same way a warning label on cigarettes or the parental advisory on an album, game or tv show. Hell, water in a can called Liquid Death sells for precisely because it has a dangerous sounding name.

Yep.  Was actually thinking integrity.   But you are right, it's a mindset away from capitalism, consumerism and material wealth.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

46 minutes ago, softlynow said:

What you're talking about is reputation. Reputation is like culture, in the sense that it is organic and resistant to the stifling hand of regulation or inartful leadership. Many of our journalists have spent the last 2-3 decades chasing soundbytes, headlines and clicks. They're not interested in reputation, because they answer, more and more, to the MBAs looking at the next quarter's earnings.

As with so many things these days, the problem is the primacy of capitalism in every aspect of our culture.

 

Disclaimers would only amplify the appeal of the bad actors in media. A stamon media as "bad for you" would work the same way a warning label on cigarettes or the parental advisory on an album, game or tv show. Hell, water in a can called Liquid Death sells for precisely because it has a dangerous sounding name.

you're right, let's do nothing and assume things will change for the better. 🙄

Edited March 18 by Longhorn_Fan68

[WhatTheBuck 28,812]

6 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

why is that motherfucker not in prison?

[F250 28,827]

Tiktok is dangerous because it has the ability to collect massive amounts of American user data and mine that data to microtarget the American public with disinformation campaigns.

We should probably pass laws to prevent any tech company from collecting American user data to prevent China from weaponizing TikTok against Americans, right?

Big brain: "nah, let's force China to sell it to Mnuchin and the Saudis."

 

[hayden_horn 11,365]

6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I said it a while back on the previous scat site and got laughed out of the room, but we need a distinction between press and media. Press is a protected class by the Constitution (that darn thing again) and should be treated as such. Real journos have to go to school and be trained for their craft - make it a profession that requires licensing just as you would an architect, doctor, lawyer, etc. Make continuing education part mandatory, enforced by a regulatory board that creates standards and practices. Just as with any professional organization, if you do your job poorly enough, you can no longer hold a license. That's The Press. EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park.

this is great. i love this idea. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

5 hours ago, softlynow said:

What you're talking about is reputation. Reputation is like culture, in the sense that it is organic and resistant to the stifling hand of regulation or inartful leadership. Many of our journalists have spent the last 2-3 decades chasing soundbytes, headlines and clicks. They're not interested in reputation, because they answer, more and more, to the MBAs looking at the next quarter's earnings.

As with so many things these days, the problem is the primacy of capitalism in every aspect of our culture.

 

Disclaimers would only amplify the appeal of the bad actors in media. A stamon media as "bad for you" would work the same way a warning label on cigarettes or the parental advisory on an album, game or tv show. Hell, water in a can called Liquid Death sells for precisely because it has a dangerous sounding name.

I'm revisiting this: I think you completely mistake the intention of the disclaimer I conceive. I jokingly referenced South Park and the disclaimer before its shows, however. that's not really what it would be. it would be a few lines stating that the following information is unverified and should be considered opinion until reported by THE PRESS. Until information is verified by professionals, it's only chatter and cannot and should not be trusted. I don't get this reticence to quit watering the truth. Either you want truth to matter again or you don't. if you do, then let's yield the greatest weapon we have - one that at best we are just letting rust in the boneyard - and revive journalistic integrity by giving it a status it deserves and all the scrutiny that goes with it.

Also, what's a stamon?                                                     

[atomheartbevo 89,848]

26 minutes ago, F250 said:

Tiktok is dangerous because it has the ability to collect massive amounts of American user data and mine that data to microtarget the American public with disinformation campaigns.

We should probably pass laws to prevent any tech company from collecting American user data to prevent China from weaponizing TikTok against Americans, right?

Big brain: "nah, let's force China to sell it to Mnuchin and the Saudis."

I tell the MAGA types/olds about the concept of GDPR and they are like "wow that sounds awesome, why aren't we doing it?" and I tell them "because Congress won't, even though it's present in Europe" and then it's all "Oh, the Europeans have GDPR, no thanks"

[softlynow 1,840]

23 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm revisiting this: I think you completely mistake the intention of the disclaimer I conceive. I jokingly referenced South Park and the disclaimer before its shows, however. that's not really what it would be. it would be a few lines stating that the following information is unverified and should be considered opinion until reported by THE PRESS. Until information is verified by professionals, it's only chatter and cannot and should not be trusted. I don't get this reticence to quit watering the truth. Either you want truth to matter again or you don't. if you do, then let's yield the greatest weapon we have - one that at best we are just letting rust in the boneyard - and revive journalistic integrity by giving it a status it deserves and all the scrutiny that goes with it.

Also, what's a stamon?                                                     

You want the government to be the arbiter of truth? Sounds great when the government believes the truth you believe. How about the next GOP administration. You want them labeling all the critical nightly shows as subversive? Censoring NPR? Announcing that what CNN just aired was a lie and go tune in to OANN for the real truth? What you want to do runs afoul of the 1sr Amendment. Community notes are a fine way for the people to add and point out a possible lie. Compulsory Government notes would be an expansion of the state’s propaganda power. 

I never said do nothing. I said don’t do counterproductive things. Pee color charts in the locker room, kicking guys off the team just to show off you mean it with no regard for your core mission, runny eggs to instill toughness. At its tamest, that’s the effect your “unverified facts ahead:” warning. At it’s worst, and with a friendly Nine, you’re just adding to the fascists’s took kit.

Culture change is slow and difficult. For even small changes it’s often a multi-generational effort, and it happens in public fora. The same ones you’d invite the government to comment on. I’d rather government not put their thumb on that scale, and instead give the  coming reaction to Boomer excess room to breathe. 

Stamon is typo. Typo is stamon. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

I said nothing of the sort. Maybe reread what I wrote and try again.

[softlynow 1,840]

20 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I said nothing of the sort. Maybe reread what I wrote and try again.

I read it.

"EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park."

Maybe it sounded more substantial in your head.

 

[Cum Rocket 136]

20 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I said it a while back on the previous scat site and got laughed out of the room, but we need a distinction between press and media. Press is a protected class by the Constitution (that darn thing again) and should be treated as such. Real journos have to go to school and be trained for their craft - make it a profession that requires licensing just as you would an architect, doctor, lawyer, etc. Make continuing education part mandatory, enforced by a regulatory board that creates standards and practices. Just as with any professional organization, if you do your job poorly enough, you can no longer hold a license. That's The Press. EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park.

I think you have an elevated opinion of journalists. They're all people with biases that come out through the selection of stories to cover (present to audiences), or their framing of the stories. Of course it's always been that way, but with the passage of time and more access to information it's become clear that is the case.

And I hate to break it to you but appeals for credentialism are much less effective than before as well. This especially accelerated after COVID.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

I read it.

"EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park."

Maybe it sounded more substantial in your head.

 

This completely ignores the original premise of my post/idea. You're focused on the disclaimer when you should be concerned with the meat of the issue - distinguishing between fact and opinion. That is the goal here. Feel free to offer better solutions, but to just outright dismiss the idea means you aren't serious about solving the problem. Perhaps that problem benefits you in some way. I don't know, but I don't envision this being a big hand of the government type of thing. Let's focus on the industry I know best: architecture. My license is regulated by an independent, not-for-profit entity that sets standards for public safety. Explain to me how this model cannot work for the press. I'm genuinely interested in how that magically shifts to "thuh govmint is thinking for me!"

14 minutes ago, Cum Rocket said:

I think you have an elevated opinion of journalists. They're all people with biases that come out through the selection of stories to cover (present to audiences), or their framing of the stories. Of course it's always been that way, but with the passage of time and more access to information it's become clear that is the case.

And I hate to break it to you but appeals for credentialism are much less effective than before as well. This especially accelerated after COVID.

 

Which multi-banned poster is this? 

[softlynow 1,840]

53 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

This completely ignores the original premise of my post/idea. You're focused on the disclaimer when you should be concerned with the meat of the issue - distinguishing between fact and opinion. That is the goal here. Feel free to offer better solutions, but to just outright dismiss the idea means you aren't serious about solving the problem. Perhaps that problem benefits you in some way. I don't know, but I don't envision this being a big hand of the government type of thing. Let's focus on the industry I know best: architecture. My license is regulated by an independent, not-for-profit entity that sets standards for public safety. Explain to me how this model cannot work for the press. I'm genuinely interested in how that magically shifts to "thuh govmint is thinking for me!"

You're better than this. So I don't like your idea, so what? Now I'm the problem? Calm your tits.

Ok, now about self-censorship. At least the 1A isn't implicated. But let me know when you think the Boads of Directors of Fox Corp., News Corp., Comcast, National Amusements, Disney, the NYT Co., Nash Holdings, Naspers, Thompson Reuters, Warner Bros., Nexstar IACI, Sinclair, etc. etc., are going to see an increase in their bottom lines by agreeing to stop feeding their consumers the shit content that keeps the quarterly profits coming in.

The key difference between self-regulated industries like Hollywood and the news media is that Hollywood knows that steady and predictable profits are more certain with regulation than without it. They also know that D.C. would get involved if they didn't label the films that run afoul of puritanical sensibilities (there's enough gray area under the Miller test for the feds to act). The news media would almost certainly NOT profit by what you propose, and know that politicians are constitutionally unable to intervene. Any variation of what you're talking about would likely be considered prior restriant or impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

Find a way to make the truth profitable, and misinformation unprofitable, and to do it either without government intervention or with it in a way that clears 1A scrutiny and you're on to something. I won't hold my breath. 

Again, you need to focus on what is harder, but also more vital. Changing our culture. We once valued truth-tellers. We could do so again, with work. Sorry that's not a blueprint, or a 5-step plan or 1 simple trick, but that's the answer. Keep insisting on the truth, even from your allies and friends. Do it with your voice and your pocketbook. Get others to do the same. Convince leaders to carry that torch. Try to build a movement.

This is an aside, and not really that important:

As far as I know, the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners is a state agency. Is there some other agency you're talking about that governs standards in addition to those that the state regulates? I'm not really all that familiar with that industry.

[bolverk 29,737]

5 hours ago, softlynow said:

As far as I know, the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners is a state agency. Is there some other agency you're talking about that governs standards in addition to those that the state regulates? I'm not really all that familiar with that industry.

Since it's been a few hours, I'll go ahead and answer for him: I believe he's referring to the American Institute of Architects.

[Mdhorn 5,990]

On 3/18/2024 at 5:24 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I said it a while back on the previous scat site and got laughed out of the room, but we need a distinction between press and media. Press is a protected class by the Constitution (that darn thing again) and should be treated as such. Real journos have to go to school and be trained for their craft - make it a profession that requires licensing just as you would an architect, doctor, lawyer, etc. Make continuing education part mandatory, enforced by a regulatory board that creates standards and practices. Just as with any professional organization, if you do your job poorly enough, you can no longer hold a license. That's The Press. EVERYTHING else is media and is given all the appropriate disclaimers and such as you would say, South Park.

The media is damn near us now--the internet diluted facts and journalists, since it is mostly free and immediate. We quit buying newspapers and magazines for the most part, which forced them to go broke or downsize.  Also, opinions in articles is actually something that foreign adversaries have targeted to poison the water, because Americans seem to give a shit about them enough to argue with bots and bad foreign actors posing as Steve or Joe.  But society is to blame for the media being what it is, plus we allowed them to be bought up by a few American/Australian oligarchs.  Also RW seemingly controls the airwaves with their incessant, loud whining and white victim mentality.  

[Dnaguy 12,120]

3 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

The media is damn near us now--the internet diluted facts and journalists, since it is mostly free and immediate. We quit buying newspapers and magazines for the most part, which forced them to go broke or downsize.  Also, opinions in articles is actually something that foreign adversaries have targeted to poison the water, because Americans seem to give a shit about them enough to argue with bots and bad foreign actors posing as Steve or Joe.  But society is to blame for the media being what it is, plus we allowed them to be bought up by a few American/Australian oligarchs.  Also RW seemingly controls the airwaves with their incessant, loud whining and white victim mentality.  

Media is (are?) a reflection of the society in which it operates in.

Therefore, the current withered state of true journalism and the rise of the veneer  of news and existence like Facebooks / instas / TikToks is because we are ‘happier’ as batteries for the Matrix / simulation than active participants of our own reality with agency because it’s hard.

People who want the agency can therefore exploit this fact and consolidate power and wealth while the dumb dumbs exist in their delusional state.

The huge spike in mental health issues is something of an immune response of the mind / soul to the fake reality and existence we’ve come to live. Our body or mind or soul cannot subsist on the current state of things much like our bodies cannot subsist on exclusively snickers, skittles, and lucky charms alone. Our cravings seem to be at odds with our overall true health.

 

What were we talking about again?

Edited March 20 by Dnaguy

[Cum Rocket 136]

10 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Also RW seemingly controls the airwaves with their incessant, loud whining and white victim mentality.  

Imagine the victim mentality it takes to feel as though right wingers "control the airwaves". Just not even close to being true.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,900]

14 hours ago, bolverk said:

Since it's been a few hours, I'll go ahead and answer for him: I believe he's referring to the American Institute of Architects.

No, AIA is the professional organization. NCARB is the national governing body

[C-Man 27,286]

12 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

The media is damn near us now--the internet diluted facts and journalists, since it is mostly free and immediate. We quit buying newspapers and magazines for the most part, which forced them to go broke or downsize.  Also, opinions in articles is actually something that foreign adversaries have targeted to poison the water, because Americans seem to give a shit about them enough to argue with bots and bad foreign actors posing as Steve or Joe.  But society is to blame for the media being what it is, plus we allowed them to be bought up by a few American/Australian oligarchs.  Also RW seemingly controls the airwaves with their incessant, loud whining and white victim mentality.  

This is it in a nutshell. Anybody with an internet connection can set up an online presence that looks legit enough to fool 2/3 of Americans into believing it's a legit news source. TV news has always been ridiculous compared to print but the Internet has made traditional print nearly obsolete, or at least greatly marginalized. The NYT and WaPo and Newsweek and all the rest are online now. You know what else is online? InfoWars, and The Daily Caller and The Blaze, etc. For those who want to believe the toxic bullshit spread by these sites, it looks as professional as the legacy news organizations so of course this shit is true. It's maddening. I've said it several times before on this very board that maybe the single worst thing Trump (I might have to adjust my rankings of the vile shit he's done but my point here remains) has done to this country is completely ruin any faith Americans used to have with regard to a free press.

[JohnnyRage 1,617]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,228]

On 3/18/2024 at 10:55 PM, hayden_horn said:

Just as with any professional organization, if you do your job poorly enough, you can no longer hold a license.

Plenty of lawyers laugh at you for this one.