DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
from the good-luck-out-there dept
Back in October, reports emerged indicating that AT&T had not only funded much of the creation of the popular conspiracy and fantasy channel OAN, AT&T executives had actually come up with the original idea. The channel, which routinely traffics in false election fraud, COVID, and other right-wing conspiracy theories, had seen most of its reach come courtesy of a partnership with DirecTV. As of last week, DirecTV executives informed OAN it wouldn’t be having its contract renewed:
“The satellite-TV provider has notified OAN?s owner, Herring Networks Inc., that it plans to stop carrying the company?s two channels when their contract expires. Herring Networks also owns AWE, a lifestyle channel that stands for ?A Wealth of Entertainment.”
What changed? After its disastrous $200 billion Time Warner and DirecTV megamerger spree resulted in layoffs, lost customers, and general carnage, AT&T had to not only backtrack from its ambitions to be an online video and ad giant, it had to sell anything that wasn’t nailed down to recoup the massive debt created from the deals. That included spinning off DirecTV into its own, new entity in a partnership with private equity firm TPG Capital. While AT&T still has a 70% stake in the venture, it now has other executives with a vested interest in calling the shots.
I’d wager that while Dallas-based right wing AT&T executives had no problem being associated with the conspiracy theory channel, AT&T’s new partners at TPG likely weren’t keen on the bad press. Especially in the wake of last October’s reporting so closely linking AT&T to a channel that routinely traffics in dangerous gibberish like claims that COVID was created in a North Carolina lab.
As of last year, estimates pegged OAN’s total subscriber count (people who have the channel in their cable lineup) at somewhere around 23 million, far lower than Fox News (78.6 million) or even Newsmax (58.2 million). But estimates of how many people actually watch the channel consistently is notably lower than that:
Nielsen has #'s for OANN in "metered markets," i.e. the country's biggest metro areas. This spring, in those markets, OANN has been averaging just 14,000 viewers. Fox News: 631,000 viewers in those same markets.
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 15, 2019
Without DirecTV’s help, the channel’s reach is curtailed even further. Now the channel is only carried by a small handful of cable TV providers, the biggest being Verizon’s FiOS TV. Granted the channel’s gibberish still gets traction online as part of the far right propaganda ecosystem (which includes both sharing by people who believe what the channel has to say, and outrage retweets from those who don’t) but in terms of traditional distribution the move significantly restricts the propaganda bullhorn’s impact all the same.
Filed Under: cable tv, carriage, conspiracy theories, oan, pay tv, propaganda
Companies: at&t, directv, herring networks, oan
Comments on “DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach”
Too little, too late.
While it’s a good thing that AT&T/Discovery/whoever owns DirectTV did this, this is far too little, too late. The damage is already done.
Re: I failed to elaborate.
By "The Damage is already done, I mean "The January 6 Coup D’état attempt was good and/or fake news" is now a mainstream opinion in the GOP, and OANN had a role to play in that, as well as in fomenting the lies that led to the insurrection attempt.
Re: Too little, too late.
Do you like censorship or only when you disagree?
Making
Rand Paul an Angry Elf
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1483142934807687170?s=20
Re: Making the quack squawk
Ah. Warms my heart to see Ducktor Paul so flustered.
The saddest thing is that even in the GOP, the word "conservative" translates to right-wing batshit-crazy, rather than to any governing philosophy.
Re: Re:
Modern American conservatism has no coherent governing philosophy beyond “own the libs”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. It also has the philosophy that everything wrong with the world would be magically fixed if only they were allowed to return to the fantasy version of the 1950s they saw on TV as kids. The fact that it never existed to begin with, and that if it did it would be hell for anyone not a straight white middle-aged Christian male, is not to be discussed openly. Also, never mention what the tax rates were for the rich in the real timescale.
Re: Re: Re:2 'Why else would we desire it so badly?'
and that if it did it would be hell for anyone not a straight white middle-aged Christian male, is not to be discussed openly.
Probably because they see that as a feature rather than a bug but even they realize that saying that part out loud wouldn’t be a good look to most people.
Re: Re: Re:3 'Why else would we desire it so badly?'
Not that any of these proponents actually follow the teachings of Christ. They mostly follow a Prosperity Gospel thing, which amounts to "take as much money from all the people who listen to us while promising they’ll get profit in return while actually giving them nothing."
Meanwhile, actual Biblical teachings:
"For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains." ~ 1 Timothy 6:10 NET Bible
"Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.” ~ Matthew 19:24 NET Bible
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you…" ~ Matthew 5:43-44 NET Bible
And then, of course, there’s this, which applies to very specifically to the type of folks in discussion here:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven—only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many powerful deeds in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
~ Matthew 5:15-23 NET Bible.
To be very clear – those who peddle hatred, as these ones do, may claim to be Christian, but they are not demonstrating that they are.
Re: Re: Re:3
To wit: Mitch McConnell.
Re: Re: Re:3 'Why else would we desire it so badly?'
Also, some of this is down to them looking at a reflection of themselves and coming to the wrong conclusion. These people seem petrified of the concept that the straight, white, middle-aged Christian male is a minority population going forward. They’re scared because they know how they treat minorities and don’t want it happening to them.
The idea that you don’t have to treat minorities in this fashion and that the push for actual equality is to stop such abuse seems to escape them. I say this as a straight, roughly middle-aged white male who was raised Christian (though I’ve been atheist for most of my adult life) – I’ve never felt the need to abuse people different from myself, so the concept of being a minority does not scare me. In fact, some of the best places I’ve ever lived are among communities different from myself.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"It also has the philosophy that everything wrong with the world would be magically fixed if only they were allowed to return to the fantasy version of the 1950s they saw on TV as kids."
What I find ironic is that what existed of that time when they considered america "great" (for some, at least) relied almost exclusively on FDR’s decidedly socialist platform of unionization, heavy industrial and banking regulations, extreme taxation of the rich, etc.
In short every red hat wearer has a banner on their head proclaiming they want to be socialist again.
"The fact that it never existed to begin with, and that if it did it would be hell for anyone not a straight white middle-aged Christian male, is not to be discussed openly."
Well, it sort of did exist. A single breadwinner could afford a house, a family, a car and setting money aside for their pensions. Conditions were indeed hellish for black people – but context matters. Today the baseline has been lowered for white lower and middle class to the point where although racism is very much still a thing the gap between the living standards of black and white people have been drastically reduced.
The hitherto privileged reacted predictably. The occupy movement followed by a surge of socialist ideals (to the predictable response from both sides of the aisle) by increasing proportions of the population…and a large and very loud minority squawking in outraged disbelief that the system treats them almost as bad as if they weren’t white.
"Also, never mention what the tax rates were for the rich in the real timescale."
Interestingly aside from AOC, Salazar and Bernie I haven’t seen too many democrats all that interested in meaningfully closing the tax loopholes exploited by the extremely wealthy. I could be charitable and say Biden’s got enough on his plate – but unless a lot of democrats come out right now and start talking about "eating the rich" I’m not seeing the midterms looking all that good for them in many contested states.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Why would they. The vast majority of politicians exploit those very loopholes.
The problem isn’t tax rates!
It’s all the ways knowledgeable people use to get out of taxes.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yeah, which makes it strange that the ideas you support always seem to be the ones that allow them to do that with less effort.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I fail to see how removing all deductions and switching to a minimum taxable base allows for exploiting deduction loopholes.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yes, we know that you can’t see why the things you have suggested are. by their nature regressive and only benefit the wealthy who are the ones exploiting the current system. Your inability to understand why this is despite it being explained to you many times is a problem, but that doesn’t stop it from being true.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
No deductions.
Means
No deductions to abuse.
There’s nothing to “not see” in that.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Yes, because you remove the deduction you built the inequality and regressive nature of the tax into the base plan and not in to option extras that only the rich exploit.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"I fail to see how removing all deductions and switching to a minimum taxable base allows for exploiting deduction loopholes."
There are ways – but it takes a lot more maneuvering and isn’t as clearcut. Sweden allows a very narrow frame of deductions to be used at all and so the traditional US method of "buy, borrow, die" can’t apply. As a result tax evasion is usually performed by having the revenue come in to banks in tax shelters – but that is illegal and traceable which means the revenue services catch bundles of people pulling that trick every few years, every time they go on a "fishing trick".
When evading taxes carries an actual risk is when you start seeing most of the wealthy actually paying their dues.
What you also need, on top of this, is a well formulated estate tax and taxes on fixed wealth above certain limits. Because there’s a long-term issue at play here, where you end up fostering a new feudal class where the flows of wealth and assets in a nation gradually end up concentrated to a small percentage of neo-feudal hereditary nobility.
For money to do its job it needs to flow. Ironically the US system of wealth concentration works in direct contradiction with anything the spirit of that nation was built around.
Re: Re: Re:7
You mean something like 1% of people in a country owning more wealth than all of the remaining 99% combined?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"You mean something like 1% of people in a country owning more wealth than all of the remaining 99% combined?"
I mean exactly that.
There’s an old joke that if you begin studying economics you may go in a capitalist but will emerge a socialist. It’s not all that exaggerated because once you start looking at market economics you find they can only produce one end game unless seriously curbed.
At the same time there are no realistic alternatives if you want an economy at all – which is in any non-post scarcity society a no-brainer.
I kind of feel sorry for Karl Marx at times. He wrote one of the best summaries of market economics of all time – Das Kapital, still required or recommended reading in any economics class worldwide – looked at the end game (which the current US is approaching) and apparently went nuts in desperation and wrote The Communist Manifesto. Also a brilliant work except the assumptions it makes on the ability of humans to be perfect.
It’s become a recurring theme. If you want a detailed and accurate description of why a US worker is worse off today than their parents and their parents were worse off than their grandparents, why the minimum wage today gets you far less than in times past and how a lot of people have to hold down three jobs to support themselves only when 50 years ago a single breadwinner could support a family of four with cash to spare…go see a genuine marxist. They know.
Unfortunately the solution they prescribe isn’t functional until we’ve got Star Trek replicators…
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Part of my thought process in supporting a national monthly paid social security deposited minimum annual income, for every citizen, tax free, is it would give everyone an equal social starting point.
Having the needs covered upfront takes us in a very different direction of want to work rather than need.
A lot of positive side effects happen with that. Employment is no longer exploitive if they want to stay in business. You mistreat employees who are truly at will they simply quote and walk away.
And you don’t get grumpy have to be there employees dumping on every one else. They want to be there.
The happiness level goes up very fast.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
"Part of my thought process in supporting a national monthly paid social security deposited minimum annual income, for every citizen, tax free, is it would give everyone an equal social starting point. "
The "citizen’s salary". Yeah, that’d be Andrew Yang’s platform. Personally I’d try to tie it to political engagement – as a citizen you’ve got That One Job. Educate yourself about candidates and Vote.
It probably says a lot how well that got pushed that even Democrats following the candidady for 2020 were often unaware that such a candidate existed.
The thing is, "citizen’s salary" can even be posited as a centrist-right idea – of every citizen being a shareholder in the nation and earning dividends. Centrist-right by european measurements, of course. By the US current overton window it’s so far left even moderate dems will holler about the Red Menace…
There are plenty of other side effects. If you are unemployed and on social security today, even in Sweden, most of your time will be spent hunting jobs, declaring that you’re actively looking for a job to social services, spending hours every day dropping your CV at places which will never accept you just to fill your quota, etc. No time left over to start a business of your own or try to find something you actually want to do.
People who are already down and out on their luck, on the spectrum, in need of therapy or for various reasons just less able…often can’t work full time straight off the bat – and fulfilling the requirements for social services are, more often than not, a harshly eroding experience in itself. At the end of which sure, the person in need gets money to live but often at the expense of their mental health. Better to just get them what they need to live up front and then get the person fixed.
We wouldn’t treat machinery the way we treat broken people. Something has to change about that.
If I had to be a cynic I’d even make the call that just handing over the minimum subsistence amount would turn out not even to cost society that much – the administration around social services and determining who is in need are staggering. Most of it would be recouped by the fact that employers could remove the granted sum from salaries and hand it over in tax instead.
Re: Re: Re:11
I dunno, rich motherfuckers like Bezos probably think of both groups in the exact same way: disposable and replaceable tools meant only to facilitate the expansion of his obscene wealth.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
"I dunno, rich motherfuckers like Bezos probably think of both groups in the exact same way…"
How much do you think it costs to replace a broken conveyor belt? As compared to replacing the worker attending that belt who finally walked because he was fed up with having to use an on-site bottle rather than take toilet breaks?
Answer; The worker costs a pittance to replace even if said replacement is due to said worker breaking.
A bad fit for the persistent imagery provided by US media which still blares out a message increasingly resembling the old USSR spiel of the "Worker’s Utopia". Hell, with 1 in 10 americans on SNAP (food stamps), 40% of US households unable to cope with an unplanned $400 expense, and conditions worsening fast…it’s at the point where you could argue the old soviet workers had it better.
From my own perspective that answer is a throwback to early 18th century where I live, because over here anything even resembling that would be a case of that warehouse shutting down. It’s complete un-fscking-believable.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
I personally don’t like limitations on it though. Forget Yang, I’m more in Favour of Bernie and AOC’s idea.
And I’ve done the math for that plan. As low as 18% tax on the top 10 gross income companies. Gross, not net… taxes should be deduction free.
So at the 40%-49% commercial tax rates I support coupled with lower personal income taxes we pay for a minimum income grant annually with money left over just on those 10 companies!
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Every ill caused by runaway capitalism hinges on one single fact;
Look at Europe; No matter how entry-level your position as a burger flipper or janitor your employer provides a living wage, paid leave, paid sick leave, paid maternity/paternity leave, strong union support, and pension contribution.
And companies accept this without complaint – and the local corporate culture in most major companies reflect this idea. Often respecting these ideals is incorporated in the Code Of conduct. The concept that enforced humanitarian ideals will cause the sky to fall and the sun to set on a nations economy is demonstrably wrong.
Every ill affecting the US workers – minimum wages too low to live on, no safety net, often no paid leave of any kind, often neither pension nor health plan…it’s all because companies don’t just want to do well. It’s simply normal that if you earn a few dollars more by keeping ten thousand workers in feudal serfdom then that is what must be done.
And save for the few lonely actual left-wingers in the democrat party (Bernie, AOC, Salazar, etc) every member of the body politic – on both sides – essentially want that state of affairs to remain.
It’s frustrating. I grok why more americans want to just take a torch to the current system and hang the consequences. Comditions for about half the citizenry are rapidly approaching USSR standards of living. And as it was with the old soviet union the commissars just keep braying about the "Worker’s Utopia"..err…"Land of opportunity".
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
It’s unfortunate that if you want to know how a system’s broken you almost invariably have to look at some bright left-winger in the US, the actual DSA). Not surprising since when it comes to analysis of capitalism Marx set the standard with his Das Kapital – still recommended reading in every university focused on market economics. Now if he’d only stopped at that point rather than try to write up a theoretically perfect system we wouldn’t have a lot of idealists thinking that humans would stop being human for long enough for that system to work.
I’m guessing if you’re a right-winger you’ll end up staring a lot of unpalatable facts in the face when looking at your chosen system. Most who do end up wanting to use a strong state as check and balance to a free market which brings the workable hybrid of social democracy.
And a state where politicians are bought and sold – where the money is in politics – isn’t a strong state, nor one representing the citizenry. It’s one which came with a price tag attached.
"The problem isn’t tax rates! "
It never is. As long as what you keep after the state has taken its cut is enough to live on well without fear – plus enough to set aside in savings – it really doesn’t matter if your "tax rate" is 15, 30, or 50%. What matters, when it comes to determining your normal living standard – the metric everyone actually cares about – is determined by necessary expenses.
And it isn’t in the interest of those holding power in the US for the bleating herd to become something other than a flock of sheep to fleece.
Ah sweet schadenfreude...
AT&T funds and creates propaganda channel, botches merger so badly that they need to scrounge some cash and spins off the company that was hosting it, and as soon as the new execs show up they decide that nah, they’d rather not be known for hosting that sewage.
The people at AT&T who were involved in OAN’s creation have got to be seriously put out, they paid good money for that propaganda and lies, how dare the new execs not just love it all to pieces and share it far and wide?!
Re: Ah sweet schadenfreude...
You assume that they haven’t already got their money’s worth out of it. If the aim was to push right-wing talking points with a view to directing political outcomes, it did its job during the Trump era, especially when some viewers started flocking to it once they decided that Fox was becoming too "liberal" (read: inserting the occasional fact in between its opinion pieces). It wouldn’t be surprising to find out that they were getting some financial benefit as well.
Fast forward to today – well, Trump failed to get re-elected despite the lies pushed about the election before and after, and they face potential legal consequences for doing so. With or without availability on DirectTV they’re probably sunk to some degree, and the failure here might work to their advantage (the lawyers from Dominion and others might not be so eager to pick apart the corpse and follow money trails if it’s already dead before they get to it).
The smart money is in investing in the next right-wing grift that will attract the displaced viewers who haven’t worked out the con game yet, not in shedding tears about what happened with their last grift.
Re: Ah sweet schadenfreude...
My impression is that AT&T supported them in the hope that they would take a sizable chunk out of Fox’s viewership, lowering their ratings and giving AT&T leverage to negotiate lower carriage rates for Fox. That’s clearly failed, so they may want to cut their losses.
This is terrible! Where am I going to get my conspiracy theories and propaganda now? Well OK, there’s still Facebook …
Re: Re:
But where are the conspiracy theorists on Facebook going to get their conspiracies from without OAN to provide them?
Re: Re:
Well, they all still have assholes, so…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But how many are capable of thinking for themselves, and how many just follow a leader that appeals to their self centred personality.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True enough. The US is the land of Facebook and Taco Bell. They never run out of conspiracy stories and sick self-burns.
Re: Re: Re:
4chan, 8chan, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, The Daily Mail, Fox News The Gateway Pundit, The Drudge Report, Infowars, World News Daily, Epoch Times, World news Daily Report, Natural News, The New York Post, Washington times, The Blaze, The Sun, Sinclair news, Newsmax, AM Talk Radio as a whole, Evangelical Megachurch ‘pastors’…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But don’t you know that ‘Conservative voices are being silenced’? 😉
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Breitbart, Stormfront, Telegram, Fox Nation, QAnon podcasts, Real America’s Voice, The Joe Rogan Experience, Louder with Crowder, PragerU…
Re: Re: Re:
These conspiracy nutters have always existed and will continue to exist. The trick is to return them to the small pockets of fringe nutters they used to be, rather than allowing them the veneer of mainstream respectability that might trap otherwise normal people.
One way to do that is to ensure that when they’re spouting their nonsense, gullible targets aren’t able to turn on the TV and see the sources being presented as another news channel alongside actual journalistic outlets (as flawed as many of those still are on US TV).
Conspiracy theories
You would think that with AT&T’s grafting to the NSA that they would have a direct line to determine whether the theories are real or not.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Proof
Thanks for helping to prove the the censorship is real.
If you don’t think approved thoughts, you get cancelled.
2 + 2 = 4
I really used to like TD ’til it went off the left cliff.
Re: Proof
The US Government wasn’t involved in OAN getting dumped by the network. Therefore, no censorship was involved. Please stow your conspiracies elsewhere
Re:
OANN had a contract with AT&T. Once AT&T chose not to renew said contract, OANN was not entitled—legally, morally, or ethically—to remain on DirecTV past the duration of the original contract. Unless you can prove the government compelled AT&T to cut ties with OANN, what AT&T did isn’t censorship.
But feel free to keep whining about how that’s censorship, if you want. I would love to juxtapose that belief with how you feel about, say, the latest anti-“CRT” bill from Ron DeSantis.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I’m with DeSantis on this one. I mean, why are those things around anymore? Everyone should’ve long since moved on to flat panels. So if DeSantis wants to outlaw CRT’s, then good for him!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Everyone should’ve long since moved on to flat panels. So if DeSantis wants to outlaw CRT’s, then good for him!"
Sadly where the GOP is concerned I’m not convinced they moved past smoke signals.
Re: First they came for the insurrectionists...
Ah yes, the heinous form of censorship that is… one sec… ‘refusing to continue to carry a particular channel on your privately owned property because it’s run by and filled with garbage and lies’, no different than the government coming in and telling you you’re not allowed to speak anywhere really.
Re: Re: First they came for the insurrectionists...
Realistically, the "because" is irrelevant. This is a simple case of a private company deciding not to renew a business contract with another private company. Happens all the time without comment. In fact, this same cult will gloat if it happens to channels they consider to be opposed to their political beliefs, don’t expect them to see the hypocrisy, though.
Re: Re: Re: First they came for the insurrectionists...
And to think that conservatives were once in favor of property rights…
Re: Re: Re:2 First they came for the insurrectionists...
Oh they still do but much like many other things they seem to think it only applies to them and theirs. ‘I have the right to kick someone out of my store if I don’t like them but they are tyrannical censors if they kick me and/or my friend out of their store.’
Re: Re: Re:2 First they came for the insurrectionists...
They’re always in favour of property rights for themselves. They get itchy when they are asked to extend the same rights to others, though…
Re: Proof
Ain’t nothin’ changed about TD holmes…
Re: Proof
"Thanks for helping to prove the the censorship is real."
Still struggling with the meaning of that word, huh?
Re: Dumbassicus the Roman
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Proof
Further proof of right-whingers’ illiteracy:
Once again using "censorship" when what they’re describing is actually "capitalism."
Re: Proof
"Thanks for helping to prove the the censorship is real."
I think the sick self-burns is the only thing which makes you alt-right morons vaguely amusing; AT&T rented OAN carriage. OAN shat all over the seats of their rental. AT&T chose not to renew the lease…and you come, screaming about "gubmint suppression" and "censorship".
No, when the local watering hole tosses you out for bothering the other patrons it’s not censorship. It’s the owner of the house thinking you’re an asshole and showing you the door.
This, incidentally, is how private property works. No one owes you an audience and a platform. Bring your own damn soapbox!
"I really used to like TD ’til it went off the left cliff."
Sort of ironic that your crowd all yearns for the good old days of FDR-era socialism while ragging all over the "left" – which in the US would be represented only by the DSA in the form of Bernie and AOC.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
That sound you hear is Koby and restless94110, angrily tugging each other’s thongs while crying salty tears, lips trembling with barely restrained fury.
Do you really think the Right in the USA is bothered?
They’ll come up with some other way of spreading their propaganda. Make no mistake, corporations in the US don’t give a toss about Left/Right politics, they will do whatever makes them the most profit. If spreading Right-wing propaganda is good for their bottom line they will jump to it!
Re: Do you really think the Right in the USA is bothered?
Yes, but will it have the same reach OAN did?
And if it becomes too much of a liability, they’ll toss it.
Fox News is still in high enough demand that it’s safe. OAN, clearly, was not. It was bad for business and that’s why it’s gone.
Re: Re: Do you really think the Right in the USA is bothered?
"Yes, but will it have the same reach OAN did?"
Bingo. The major problems with something like OANN or Newsmax are not that they exist, it’s that they are presented to the mainstream alongside actual news sources and used to pull in people who would not otherwise encounter such nonsense. Remove that reach and that fake veneer, and you push some of the more dangerous rhetoric back to where people are less likely to encounter it, or be less likely to believe it once the illusion of respectability has been removed.
Re: Do you really think the Right in the USA is bothered?
"…corporations in the US don’t give a toss about Left/Right politics, they will do whatever makes them the most profit. If spreading Right-wing propaganda is good for their bottom line they will jump to it!"
Certainly. Clickbait does garner attention and views. The thing being that increasingly it’s started to percolate to shareholders that when that clickbait has become domestic terrorist propaganda it really isn’t good for their bottom line. Because having the DoJ breathing down your neck really isn’t good for commerce.
I think the US has started to realize how Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance applies to them. And not a second too soon.
Sweet schadenfreude
OANN = Orange A**hole Nutjobs Nonsense.
just an ordinary business decision
One of the reasons to get DirecTV out of AT&T was to run it like a business, which AT&T couldn’t do.
TPG ditched OANN, like private equity companies do, closing financially "underperforming" news media. I didn’t put "news" in quotes there because a PE’s spreadsheets can’t tell the difference between Chanel Rion and real reporters. DirecTV will likely lose the My Pillow infomercial channel as a result of this decision — not much revenue lost there with the My Pillow brand imploding.
Damn he was just here a second ago
Hey K-dawg where you at? This is a perfect thread to show how you still don’t understand what the First Amendment means.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Stunning
So let me get this straight: You are against censorship and cancelling……..unless you don’t like the people speaking and you don’t like what they are saying.
Wow, that’s some stunning stupidity. Guess you forgot: they coming for you next.
You should be defending speech. Should be. But you’re not. One sided censorship is still censorship. And dirty tricks like deplatforming should be punished severely. Shame on DirectTV. Shame on you for supporting it.
Re:
Please go jump in the pond nearest to your home, since you want to act like a silly goose and all.
Re: Stunning
Why don’t you complain how DirecTV is a de facto public square and cannot choose what to carry on their service because freeze peach, and you poor de-platformed victims will now have no way to access OAN? Geez, might as well live in Nazi Germany with all the persecution of you people.
This inconsistent messaging is going to fuck up all of our RWNJ Bingo cards. Shape the fuck up and stick to your script.
What I didn’t see in your comment is any reference to AT&T being the brains behind OAN. They’re big tech, aren’t they? That makes for an interesting circle to square, no? Did you ever wonder if you’re just being fleeced by people wholly aware of your ignorance?
Re: Stunning
Where in that text does it say that other must help you to publish your speech? Even if OAN is reduced to publishing using its own servers on the Internet, it freedom of speech has not been infringed, it is just that for various reason others who could help them publish have decided they do not want to be associated with them.
Re: Re: Stunning
It’s staggering how badly some people misread and/or misrepresent such an short and simple bit of text.
The first amendment means the government can’t punish you for what you say(outside of very narrow categories of speech), it doesn’t mean others are similarly restricted.
The first amendment means the government isn’t allowed to try to silence you(again, outside of narrow restrictions), it doesn’t mean it’s obligated to provide you a platform to speak from and it certainly doesn’t obligate anyone else to provide that platform.
Such a simple bit of text so it’s rather damning how certain groups/individuals keep getting it so laughably wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Stunning
But, this is all they have – free speech, net neutrality, section 230, the right to refuse admission to private property, etc… The only arguments they have depend on a complete and total misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the issues.
Re:
My god, you’re right! I’m not being given millions of dollars to tell lies to racist pensioners, clearly I have fallen victim to cancel culture and censorship and critical race theory and cultural marxism and conservative buzzwords!
OANN are free to say whatever they like, that freedom is not being infringed upon, and Direct TV are free to choose not to pay for their content. This is the precious free market conservatives always bleat about in action.
Re: Stunning
DirecTV doesn’t have a Techdirt channel. Are they censoring my speech?
Re: Re: Stunning
"DirecTV doesn’t have a Techdirt channel. Are they censoring my speech?"
Of course not. You are a subversive dissident in direct violation of Umberto Eco’s 4th defining characteristics of those Very Fine People; "Disagreement is treason."
The fine folk at OAN however, are clearly being censored since they keep bravely revealing everything about how the Kenyan Muslim and Killary sold american children to liberal cannibal sex traffickers after eating them and wearing their faces as masks.
/s because THAT is exactly the argument used in earnestness by the alt-right.
Re: Re: Re: Stunning
That would make a great movie! ???? ????
Re: Re: Re:2 Stunning
"That would make a great movie!"
If that’s your interest you can find some real gems on Youtube and various open archives around the world.
All the current near-peers have a few pretty decent 2 hour propaganda reels in the form of entertainment.
Re: Re: Re:3 Stunning
Well the closest thing I can think of is Cannibal Children. 1983. In which child slave labourers overthrow their captors and eat them. Rather bloody little 50 something minute film though poorly done. A later import bootleg on VHS called it Cannibal Kids.
Re: Re: Re:4 Stunning
"Well the closest thing I can think of is Cannibal Children."
For the US there should be a comprehensive list of movies where the DoD extended access to facilities and military material – and some troops as backdrop – against a "minor" say in adjusting dialogue and script.
Bit harder to find the USSR PR films but there’s always "The Battlecruiser Potemkin"…and just about everything else produced by Mosfilm or directed by Sergey Eisenstein.
Re: Re: Re:5 Stunning
Ultimately, the background of a film doesn’t bother me much if the final product is watchable.
Script changes happen all the time to please a or b. Various governments aren’t any different than your star wanting less, or more, nipple time.
But a film about cannibal sex traffickers could actually be good if approached cautiously.
Especially if, like Cannibal Children or K3: Prison in Hell, the victims overcome the odds and take bloody revenge.
Re: Re: Re:6 Stunning
Oh, and the whole “torture porn” headline?!!?
Bull. Watch K3, Hell’s Garden, Lust of the Vampires.
Etc!
Then tell me Saw and Hostel are torture porn. Idiots!
Re: Re: Re:6 Stunning
"But a film about cannibal sex traffickers could actually be good if approached cautiously.
Especially if, like Cannibal Children or K3: Prison in Hell, the victims overcome the odds and take bloody revenge."
Call me old-fashioned but when it comes to horror I prefer old-fashioned cult classics/turkeys like The Lost Boys, The Prophecy, Hellraiser, and stuff like that. When I want scathing political satire these days I can always browse Youtube for the latest Trae Crowder, Bill Maher or similar. Though Beau of the Fifth Column occasionally does run some hilariously sarcastic videos.
Sadly a lot of satire written in days of yore are just descriptions of contemporary events today…
Re: Re: Re:7 Stunning
A Serbian Film is probably the most out there of political dressings but it’s hardly original.
the August Underground trilogy did that first.
Personally I like low budget independent bloodsport, Italian thrillers, the new wave of French horror.
Hammer offers slight of hand. Definitely Roth films. And MNS.
Cannibal films are good when they keep the balance.
Most of all I like the female revenge films. You go girl.
Re: Re: Re:8 Stunning
Meh, I’m always on the fence about A Serbian Film. It was undeniably a very well made film, but it always seemed to me that the claims of political commentary came when there was a backlash against some of the more extreme content and they wanted to claim it wasn’t just an exploitation film. Of course, politics and exploitation movies go hand in hand a lot of the time, I’ve just remained unconvinced there.
Re: Re: Re:9 Stunning
I guess it’s just a matter of how you approach the film.
Take that the idea starts with an “exploited exploiter” being coerced back into practice.
Look at the order of the actions.
Birth, child, teen, adult.
Now look at the order of reduction.
Adult. Teen. Child. Self.
I watched it before the hype. And in its original form. So approached it with no notions going in. And not missing key elements.
Difficult to watch, but definitely powerful.
Re: Stunning
And he swallows the bait hook, line and sinker.
You Trumpers make it too easy.
Re: Stunning
“So let me get this straight:“
Well you fucking failed at the first hurdle now didn’t ya.
Re: Stunning
" And dirty tricks like deplatforming should be punished severely"
So, how do you think a private business should be punished for making the business decision not to renew a contract with one of its suppliers? How far do you demand the government step in top control private business interests? How many of Marx’s other ideas do you want to implement?
Is the same punishment applicable to the right-wing morons who are cancelling products because they’re too "woke", or is this only for you whiny bitches to defend yourselves?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Stunning
You’re completely right. They’re too scared to post my comments anymore because they firmly believe in censorship around here. I remember when TD used to be worth reading. But now they all have chronic TDS and left-cliff injuries that may never heal.
Re: Re: Thats just sad
"They’re too scared to post my comments anymore…"
Dude…
Re: Re: Stunning
"They’re too scared to post my comments anymore"
Did you… not notice the people mocking you for being an idiot when they read your comments? We can all see you
Re: Re: Re: The persecution-complex is strong with this one
The idea that TD staff would block or remove comments(outside of blatant spam) is especially funny given the ‘I’ve been here a good while’ shtick they’re pulling because anyone who has been on TD for long enough will have seen numerous examples of what TD staff do allow through, and ooh boy have some of those comments been doozies, so the idea that they could be bothered to start blocking someone now over some triviality is rather laughable.
Re: Re: Re:2 The persecution-complex is strong with this one
The constant amusement is that there are so many places that actually do what he complains about. Many right-leaning places will permaban you, and even delete your posting history, if you dare state anything contrary to the echo chamber’s thoughts. Yet, here, you’re not only allowed to post anonymously and contrarily, but people will delve into the spam filter and allow any non-spam comments that get caught up in it, even if it can take some time with it being a manual process.
Yet, the fact that his posts sometimes get caught in the spam filter in the first place (often correctly, given his deliberately spammy posting methods) is proof of some kind of wrongdoing…
Re: Re: Re:3 The persecution-complex is strong with this one
Well it is, his wrong doing in trying o exercise the hecklers charter to derail conversations.
Re: Re: Dumbfuckicus the Stonin'
[Hallucinates facts completely contrary to anything and everything in reality]
Re: Stunning
[First-Amendment-despising restless94110 projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Stunning
"You are against censorship and cancelling……..unless you don’t like the people speaking and you don’t like what they are saying."
No, you alt-right shitwit. As per usual and for the umpteenth time I guess we’ll just have to remind you that a private entity throwing out out isn’t censorship.
If you shit on the floor your host will throw you out. Are you guys truly at the level of moron where that simple fact is something you don’t grok?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
millions will dump direct
the only reason we have direct is for OAN, real news not Bias, why are they not dumping CNN or MSNBC who promote hate and cover the for democrats crimes and radical agendas. People should be able to pick their line ups
Re: millions will dump direct
You can still pick your lineup you just can’t force DirectTV to host your preferred fiction channel if they decide it’s not in their best interests.
Re:
All journalism has bias. Someone must decide what facts to distill out of the mass of available data, what to publish, and how to contextualize the facts that makes it to the page. You can no more avoid bias in journalism than you can avoid your inevitable death. The trick is looking for whether the bias is at least somewhat rooted in telling the truth.
For the fact of the “liberal” networks’ biases, at least they’re trying to be truthful in their reporting. OANN doesn’t give a shit how many lies its “reporters” tell, so long as they can help radicalize people into right-wing extremist thinking. You know, the kind of thinking that led a shitload of people to violently storm the Capitol and try to (their words, not mine) hang Mike Pence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I haven’t seen OAN since I have Xfinity.
But I won’t cheer any channel getting cut from broadcast. No matter who they are.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But I won’t cheer any channel getting cut from broadcast. No matter who they are."
The question is, why should you care?
Are you similarly up in arms every time a TV show gets cancelled because the company owning or leasing the network found it an untenable waste of airtime? Because OAN is, objectively speaking, about as non-fictional as "Firefly".
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"The question is, why should you care?"
Because he’s been told to. For self-proclaimed "independent thinkers", right wingers do seem to parrot the same weak talking points at the same time.
Interestingly, I’ve not seen anyone whining over the AWE channel being cancelled at the same time, due to the lack of renewal of the contract with the same owners as OANN. Because they haven’t been told to be upset about it, or because they’re actually OK with the actions being taken if it doesn’t affect one of their safe spaces?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I haven’t seen an article saying it was cancelled. That’s too bad. Yet another loss of choice.
I don’t see anywhere where the author of this article told me to be upset. Quite the opposite, he/she cheers for cancellation.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"I haven’t seen an article saying it was cancelled. That’s too bad. Yet another loss of choice."
If you have a buffet of gourmet food, but someone decided to offer rat turds fried with cockroaches and a cat piss jus, that item being removed from the menu is technically a lowering of choice. But, most people are fine with it, and might even be more willing to return to the restaurant after it’s removed from the menu.
"I don’t see anywhere where the author of this article told me to be upset"
Nor do I see where they told you to be upset about OANN, apart from the knee jerk "they’re part of the Trump cult so I must defend" reaction you had.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Knee jerk?
I see an author praising the silencing of an opinion.
A statement in direct opposition to free speech. I didn’t say anything relating to Trump. And honestly have no clue what he has to do with OAN.
Other than OAN is reported to be a supporter of the stolen election myth.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"I see an author praising the silencing of an opinion."
That is one interpretation of the article, although since you somehow missed the fact that AWE was mentioned in the article as well it doesn’t provide evidence that your reaction wasn’t a knee jerk.
"A statement in direct opposition to free speech"
Nowhere in the concept of free speech is "the company providing access to their private property via a contract with your private business can’t opt to not renew said contract" expressed. Free speech is still protected, unless you subscribe to the myth that free access to other peoples’ property and a built in audience are part of the deal, which it never has been.
"I didn’t say anything relating to Trump. And honestly have no clue what he has to do with OAN."
Then, you appear to have ignored their entire history.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
The headline says “Finally Dumps OAN”
And never would a champion of free speech says ‘finally dumps’.
Most of it; anyway.
It left, was dropped, whatever, Xfinity before it became a name in mainstream media enough to have known it was even a station.
From what I have read it’s just a right wing version of MSNBC spewing out conspiracies and commentary with no real news coverage.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"From what I have read it’s just a right wing version of MSNBC"ç
What is it with people like you, false equivalence and your obsession over MSNBC and CNN? Why can you never defend an actual position, only whine about vague whataboutisms relating to things that nobody outside of butthurt right-wingers ever seems to think about?
It’s never "OANN is a valid news source that has been treated unfairly because X", it’s always "but mommy, MSNBC does the bad things tooooo!"
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Well, that would be because I’ve seen nothing to say that OAN is a valid news source. Not having access to the station hinders any legitimate research.
If OAN is as bad as it is reported to be than it is an accurate comparison to make with MSNBC.
Note I didn’t mention CNN. Like Fox News CNN may have a strong bias but they still report news outside of the prime time-ish lineup of commentary.
Always having to immediately place anyone you don’t agree with in some termed class.
Because ‘people like me’ don’t get along well with the “people like you” group any more than we do in your group.
We’re independents for a reason.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
"Well, that would be because I’ve seen nothing to say that OAN is a valid news source"
Yet, here you are, valiantly defending them.
"If OAN is as bad as it is reported to be than it is an accurate comparison to make with MSNBC."
It’s not, but I don’t expect you people to make actual valid comparisons other that "someone attacked a right wing source, attack MSNBC as if they care about them!". Do you have facts or just kneejerk false equivalence and pretending that’s all that’s needed to make an argument? Because it’s really not.
"Always having to immediately place anyone you don’t agree with in some termed class."
I’m only reacting to the actual words you say. If you don’t like being classed among morons who say the same words, that’s not my fault.
"We’re independents for a reason."
Because you don’t know what the word means?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Only by proxy. I support all voices.
Karl Bode, here to me, or the author of the headline, if different, has given up their ability to champion free speech at face value now.
Just like OAN can say “babies ate my dingo” then headline author can say “finally”. But what you choose to say has consequences. One who is glad a voice has lost an outlet looses any currency in ‘defence of free speech’ discussion.
Well, it’s not knee jerk. It’s the same reaction I have to any voice having reduced reach. I have no facts here, only opinion.
I don’t have ready access to OAN
No, you react to what others mean when they say something. Not what I said.
Independents (re US politics) belong to neither major party.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
"Only by proxy. I support all voices."
Apart from the ones you’re complaining about.
"One who is glad a voice has lost an outlet looses any currency in ‘defence of free speech’ discussion."
Luckily for him, free speech has fuck all to do with the subject here. No speech has been lost, only an audience, and nobody has a guaranteed right to another person’s property to get that if they no longer wish to do business with you. Unless you’re arguing for compelled speech and the loss of the right to free association, this has nothing to do with free speech.
"Independents (re US politics) belong to neither major party."
Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard it all before – you do and say everything Republicans do, but when challenged you claim to be different despite all evidence to the contrary.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Aside from gun rights and a strong border… can you point out a policy I agree with Republicans on?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
It bears mentioning that "Both sides are the same" remains right-wing disinformation, as in the real world there’s no even left-right division, but a divion between the extreme right op[psing everyone else.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"And never would a champion of free speech says ‘finally dumps’."
Sorry, Lostin, but you are wrong. For two very relevant reasons.
1) To defend free speech doesn’t mean to blindly defend grifters and liars. It means to defend opinions, sure. But there’s a case to be made that public fraud has gone way beyond both spirit and letter of the principle. OAN would have been more respectable if they’d been more honest no matter how repugnant their opinions are.
2) When a private entity tosses someone out then how you feel about that is completely detached from any free speech considerations. If anything it’s that private entity exercising their "right of association" under 1A.
With "free speech" not being a factor at all the only thing remaining is Mike Masnick exercising his personal opinion that "finally DirectTV threw those grifters out". Which is his exercise of free speech. And we applauding this is us exercising our 1A rights.
Nowhere in this situation does OAN get the benefit of 1A.
They shat on the floor one too many times and their landlord saw fit not to renew their lease.
So, with courtesy, kindly stop using as backing for your argument a right which does not apply in spirit or letter to the situation discussed.
It’s as if the local bartender threw an unpleasant asshole out and when people cheer over not having to put up with that asshole anymore you suddenly pipe up and lament about how him no longer shitting on the floor is somehow a loss to the discourse at the bar for which everyone should properly mourn.
I mean…seriously?????
"From what I have read it’s just a right wing version of MSNBC spewing out conspiracies and commentary with no real news coverage."
It’s a bit worse that that. OAN tries to cater to the base which follows Tucker Carlson – the one who had to stand and tell a judge his show contained no facts to the point where no rational person could believe anything he said – except dialed up to 11.
They’re like MSNBC in the same way Roy Bean is a "standard US judge".
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
While I agree with 2 I find 1 to be lacking. You see this site has a tendency to support free speech.
But to do so with meaning, you must defend all speech. No matter how repugnant.
It’s without real meaning if one’s defence stoops at what is generally acceptable.
Where would we be today if everyone did that.
We have freedoms in literature because people fought for Canterbury Tales and Lady Chatterly.
We have freedom in film today because people stood up for Scarface back in the 30s as expression. From child Bride to Taxi. From Scarface to Saw.
Where would we be today if political speech was so easily cast aside. For this country was founded by casting aside the government across the sea with little care than its next paycheque of taxes.
As you side on what you think is an acceptable limit… I remind you of the Blacklist of the Cold War. Be careful where you draw your lines.
Should you one day wind up on the other side of someone else’s line.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
defending free speech =/= forcing people onto a platform or not having an opinion on certain speech
defending free speech = defending the right to speak freely
so who’s free speech rights were violated when DirecTV didn’t renew that contract with OAN and people laughed about it, spunky?
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
"You see this site has a tendency to support free speech."
Yes, and a private company choosing not to renew a contract with another private company has fuck all to do with free speech…
I see your later examples also have fuck all to do with private contracts, so your false equivalence instead of addressing facts is yet again noted.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Because my comments are not about a provider and a service not renewing a contract. they are about the obvious joy in the loss of reach of the headline writer.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
You’re whining about the way someone exercised their right to free speech in response to the subject of the article. So, the subject of the article is still in play.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
"It’s without real meaning if one’s defence stoops at what is generally acceptable."
It’s not, really. Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance applies to every principle.
Both the UN universal declaration of human rights and the US constitution set up a number of inalienable rights. Every such right has exceptions. And no right can be used to override a right held by another. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins.
You have the right to liberty…except that in daily life you are constrained from exercising that right in a thousand different ways, for instance. And you can be incarcerated which is, no doubt about it, an infringement of that right.
You have the right to be secure in your property. Except if public interest compels the state to confiscate said property; Two words, Civil Forfeiture. Ironically far harder to do to people in the far more socialist countries than it is in the US.
You have the right to speak. But the people you’d speak to have the right of association. If what you say is considered appalling by the majority they are not obligated to entertain you further in the places where they gather.
"But to do so with meaning, you must defend all speech. No matter how repugnant. "
And we do. Should Biden come out with a public order making OANN’s blithering unlawful we would all react with extreme concern. Hell, I do live in a country where "hate speech" is a legal barrier and I’m having serious concerns about that, even if it’s based on the principle that allowing someone to incite violence against a minority is an infringement on the rights if said minority. It’s one of those balancing acts where the cure comes awfully close to the harm done by the disease.
However, and pay attention here, no one is obligated to applaud and encourage fiction, fraud or bigotry. For sane people to say "Thank Cthulhu those grifters are off the air" is only a negative assertion if the reason the grifters are off the air is because their presence was made illegal. In any other case that’s just my opinion. Feel free to counter that with your own opinion – but if you do so leaning on the principles of Free Speech then I’m calling that Strawman Rhetoric.
"We have freedoms in literature because people fought for Canterbury Tales and Lady Chatterly."
If we want a real controversial there I still think Nabokov’s "Lolita" stands out as the still very much valid balance between "Yeah, this is problematic" and "Um, Free Speech?".
There’s a line in sand drawn here. If we absolutely must defend the right of all opinions to be heard where we gather then that is a principle which effectively renders it impossible to have an opinion. And that principle, if applied to human society, becomes the living argument of Popper’s old Paradox.
"As you side on what you think is an acceptable limit… I remind you of the Blacklist of the Cold War. Be careful where you draw your lines. "
You mean the one where government, applying the violence monopoly saw fit to disincentivize the reading of certain books?
THAT has no relevance on the topic of "We don’t say that here. Go elsewhere."
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
I understand your premise but it doesn’t undermine my argument.
Because ultimately I have a deep rooted support for freedom of expression.
If you don’t like it don’t look. Nobody forced you to watch OAN. Nobody forced you to read Lolita. Nobody forced you to play Doom or GTA.
Good luck getting me to give up my choice because you don’t like it.
And I’ll be damned if I ignore someone praising the silencing of others.
The creation of the headline here is opinion. And they have a right to it.
I have the right to point to that opinion and call it what it is, joy over reduced reach of a voice.
It’s not the choice of dumping a station I protest here; rather the joy shown when something gets removed.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
why shouldn’t people be happy when someone spouting obvious bullshit has one less outlet to do that with? why should people or TV networks be guaranteed a certain amount of reach?
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Because as soon as you justify silencing something you can justify silencing anything.
I didn’t say they should.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
who was silenced? how did OAN being yanked off DirecTV silence them? if they were silenced that way, why shouldn’t they be able to force their way back onto DirecTV?
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
"Because as soon as you justify silencing something you can justify silencing anything."
I really wish you fuckers would be silent about something. Instead we all have to hear you whine as loudly as possible.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
"Because as soon as you justify silencing something you can justify silencing anything. "
You really can’t.
Would you tell a bunch of hollering kids to take it outside? Or tell a guest who just said something offensive to a present relative "Sir, thank you for coming. Now kindly git"? Would the spontaneous sigh of relief or applause by other people present be something you’d disparage?
It’s incorrect – and disingenious – to claim that showing an asshole the door is to be considered as the same class of action as suppression of speech.
That being the case this boils down to mere opinion. And you are getting the feedback you’re getting because your opinion – by extension – means people should extend private courtesy to asshats they are not prepared to give.
As I keep saying…free speech may be a worthy hill to die on. But you climbed Hill 937 instead.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Again, I didn’t say anything about The provider’s choice. Only the publishing of an article on a site that champions freedom when the very first line of the page praises the loss of a voice’s outlet.
Wasn’t cut because he said things. He was cut because his play ability did not match the controversy he brought.
There have been plenty of bad-boys and controversial players over the years. Rod man and Barkley come to mind up top.
But you can go all the way back to Shoeless Joe.
Kaepernick wasn’t pushed out for being toxic or controversial. He was booted because he brought no vale for the “baggage”.
If you can’t play well you get cut.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
"Only the publishing of an article"
Free speech. You object to free speech. Just admit it.
"the loss of a voice’s outlet"
One of many outlets. I suspect we’ll continue to hear a lot from them both before and after their DirectTV contract ends.
"Wasn’t cut because he said things."
Maybe not, but they did get your favourite tangerine con artist to demand that he was as a result of his free speech and express satisfaction that he was eventually cut.
According to your previous words, a man with intellectual honesty and consistence of position would surely be even more angry at Trump attempting to influence private industry in response to free speech than he is at a private individual commenting on action that’s already taken place.
Yet, here you are….
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Misinformation!
“Only the publishing of an article on a site that champions freedom when the very first line of the page praises the loss of a voice’s outlet.”
He may or may not have. I don’t recall a direct quote that ignored his play level.
Noting once again there is a difference between championing the right to removal and the actual removal.
The difference between ‘it’s their right’ and ‘yes yes yes be gone’ holds a lot of weight in perception of limiting speech.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
"Misinformation"
Where’s the misinformation? OANN is not having its contract renewed, which is something that some think is long overdue. The author of this article states his opinion on that fact. You come in here whining that he’s exercised his right to state his opinion, while lying about people being "silenced".
There’s no misinformation here, except from people desperate to pretend that a private contract deal is a free speech violation, or to complain that someone else used their free speech rights in a way they didn’t care for.
"I don’t recall"
Of course not, how fortunate for you.
"Noting once again there is a difference between championing the right to removal and the actual removal."
Yes, and nobody’s having any rights removed, unless you’re lying about the rights that are there in the first place. You can use your free speech rights to lie about what’s happening all you want, but none has been removed.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
I simply pointed out that the headline goes counter to the premise of free speech.
Maybe. Don’t know. Rarely listened to any non-Whitehouse speeches. Rarely listened to them either.
I see you have trouble reading. I didn’t say rights were violated. I pointed out that a site that champions free speech posted a headline contrary to the distribution of speech.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
how does celebrating OAN being dumped from AT&T equal hating free speech?
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
Because right wingers desperately want to pretend that free speech means freedom from consequences of said speech, and that actions taken by private corporations are equal to action taken by the government.
Because this is easier than addressing the actual issues and facing the horrifying truth that not only are they not the main characters and heroes in their own stories, they might be something else.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Yes they do. And that’s a serious problem. More, even, so than the failure of left wing platforms to present all sides of issues!
Not quite as problematic as the left trying to compel
I’m sure you understand whatever your trying to say here. Maybe some other political slaves like yourself do as well.
Mind explaining for the rest of the world?
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
If you haven’t yet deigned to join us in literacy, there’s nothing more we can do to help you to understand Paul’s rational plain English.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
That’s rich. Given my commentary started with ramifications of interpretations.
A provider dump Ed two channels. That is their right. And I didn’t make a single comment as to that right.
To stand on the sidelines holding a sign that says free speech whilst cheering the walk to the gallows, puts a great big asterisk at the end of said sign.
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
whose rights are affected by someone cheering DirecTV for dumping OAN? whose rights are opressed when someone approves of OAN having less reach? why does anyone on OAN need a spot on DirecTV to speak their mind?
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
No one
No one
They don’t
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
Then, what’s the problem? According to your own words, the only issue is that someone else watching a perfectly legitimate action stated an opinion about it that you disagree with. So?
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
"A provider dump Ed two channels. That is their right"
Then. what’s your problem?
No free speech is affected. OANN are free to speak anywhere they wish, they just no longer have the right to use DirectTV’s service to amplify it.
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
"Not quite as problematic as the left trying to compel"
Which might be a problem if it was actually happening.
"Mind explaining for the rest of the world?"
I think everybody else understood me fine. What was your problem?
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
"I simply pointed out that the headline goes counter to the premise of free speech."
Yes, and you’ve already been told that free speech is not affected. They’re free to speak, they’re just not able to use a contracted service with one possible supplier to amplify it, because the supplier no longer want to be associated with them. There is not a problem with this..
"Rarely listened to any non-Whitehouse speeches. Rarely listened to them either."
You know, proclaiming that you chose to remain ignorant of issues is not a good retort to people recalling the issues.
"I pointed out that a site that champions free speech posted a headline contrary to the distribution of speech."
Distribution of speech is not enshrined as a right anywhere, inside or outside of the constitution. You’re free to speak, not to use someone else’s property as a megaphone if they don’t want you to use it. Stating that you’re happy that someone’s misuse of said property is finally being met with consequences is not an attack on the speech itself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
But the premise is via the title.
What misuse? Who’s.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
[Translated from Lostian to reality]
Re: Re: Re:21 Re:
No, you really didn’t. Because I made no comment on the activity of the article.
It is you and Paul that made a blind jump. Not myself.
I pointed out my complaint about a loaded, intended-to-trigger headline—and how that headline serve no purpose but to cause a reaction.
It’s just, I didn’t give the expected reaction you’d get from someone like Koby. So when faced with that you first ignore, then pretend that I ‘meant something else’.
So let me reiterate:
I find it a dirty lowering of the site to need to create an article title intended to trigger a negative response.
It is unnecessarily confrontational.
Especially when the action was nothing more than an internal decision of a company on broadcasting distribution. The article implies without much basis that it was political but could have been just as much a monetary decision. Or even a bandwidth decision.
Not than one, all the above. Or none.
The difference between Koby and the “right” and myself is I don’t demand hosting.
The difference between you and I is I would never cheer for the removal of a voice from a location. Much as I’m serious I’m my loud neighbour response here.
One does not need to support a voice to give it platform. And no, unlike you, I do not consider platforming as support. Never have and never will.
That is the view of a narrow minded individual.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
why can’t Techdirt be confrontationel? why can’t an opinion blogger express their opinion unless it makes you happy?
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
Why be confrontational when you don’t have to be?
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
why are you angry that someone said "good" to OAN losing its spot? why are you confronting people over something that doesn’t stop OAN from practicing free speech?
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
I’m not angry.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
I just did. Lol.
What does annoy me is you falsely saying I did something that I did not. Simply because you can’t separate your preconceived ideas from factual reality.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
You tell me.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
"I pointed out my complaint about a loaded, intended-to-trigger headline—and how that headline serve no purpose but to cause a reaction."
Then started to ramble about bullshit like this affects free speech.
You’re free to stop visiting this opinion blog if you find that people have different opinions to you that you can’t deal with. Otherwise, there’s literally no problem.
Re: Re: Re:23 Re:
Where? Where at all? Didn’t happen.
Re: Re: Re:24 Re:
"I see an author praising the silencing of an opinion.
A statement in direct opposition to free speech."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20220117/06314348300/directv-finally-dumps-oan-limiting-conspiracy-propaganda-channels-reach.shtml#c1358
Re: Re: Re:25 Re:
Which has nothing to do with the actions of a satellite provider and a content provider.
I did not ramble on about any effect on free speech; rather that I see one cheering for the loss of a voice’s outlet. See angry neighbours context above.
It’s not a statement on free speech, but on the hypocrisy of only defending speech one supports.
Re: Re: Re:26 Re:
whose speech needs defending if OAN getting dropped from DirecTV isn’t a violation of free speech? why do we need to protect speech from being dropped from an outlet that wants nothing to do with it? what does someone being happy about OAN getting dropped do to oppress anyone’s free speech?
Re: Re: Re:27 Re:
Here’s the thing with me.
I believe the more voices the better. And the more reach for those voices the better.
Contrary to “leftist” beliefs… in reality when someone is removed from a platform their voice absolutely has been silenced – on that platform.
I cherish debate and communication.
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
why do you think the voices of Nazis and other such trash people deserve more reach?
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
Not more reach. The same as anyone.
To truly support freedom of speech you must support all speech.
If you don’t, you fall short of true support.
You will not change my mind on that firm belief.
I believe every voice is important no matter how far left or right.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
why do we need to approve of Nazi speech to protect free speech? why are you so eager to force Nazi speech on people who don’t want to hear it?
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
Who said anything about approval?
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
"To truly support freedom of speech you must support all speech."
support means approval
why do we need to approve of shitty speech in order to support someone’s right to say it? why do we need to make sure everyone can hear that shitty speech even if they don’t want to?
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
"To truly support freedom of speech you must support all speech."
Which includes the right to free association, and DirectTV have chosen not to be associated with OANN.
This is what I love about people whose brains have been turned to mush by Murdoch and Breitbart – you claim to be for freedom while actively opposing it.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
Your thought of what I oppose is definitely wrong but you may have some leverage on the fact of opposition despite your fallacy that it has anything to do with Fox or Breitbart.
Your implication is that I have an opinion on the contract issue of OAN and DTV which is incorrect.
My opposition is to the celebration of cancellation. Without regard for who is cancelled.
So yes, there is a bit of side-effect in my opposition to someone blindly cheering when something they don’t like is removed.
So maybe. And that makes me pause to consider that small validity in your biased ranting.
Ultimately though my observation on the situation is correct though. You support the cancellation under political motivation as not being a supporter of whatever the political content of that station is.
Where I oppose the aspect of being glad someone has been cancelled. Not because of any one voice but because one loss leads to another and inevitably they will come for me.
Do you honestly think I’d be welcomed at Trumpbook or Parler?
I am concerned with the eventual erosion of options.
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
"despite your fallacy that it has anything to do with Fox or Breitbart."
You’ve claimed to get most of your news from them, and you’re parroting some of the deliberately wrong conclusions they feed their audiences in order to pretend that they’re being unfairly punished when people tell them to go elsewhere when they act like assholes.
If what you say is nothing to do with those venues, then I am impressed at how closely you are copying their ideas.
"Your implication is that I have an opinion on the contract issue of OAN and DTV which is incorrect."
Then, what’s your problem? No free speech is affected, the only thing that’s happened is that DirectTV have opted not to renew a supplier contract. Why the whining about free speech fi what you have a problem with is not the ONLY thing that’s happened?
"I am concerned with the eventual erosion of options."
I’m concerned with assholes trying to co-opt private platforms and audiences that don’t want them under a misrepresentation of what free speech entails.
You, OANN and any other idiot has the right to their opinions, and the right to express them. You just can’t force other people to listen to or host you. That is fine, and changing that fact involves removing rights from. others – which informed people are not going to let you do just because you feel you have to lie about the scope of free speech.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
See, you continue to focus on something other than what I was discussing.
If your support of a speech stops at what you dislike you fail to support all speech.
My commentary isn’t about OAN, or any level of censorship. It’s on the projection of rights but with limits.
If you cheer the limitations you are well in your way to bans.
That’s where you open yourself to actual censorship.
As a single ban will eventually expand.
And eventually they will ban something you support.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
why do we have to approve of shitty speech to support free speech rights? why do you believe the ACLU had to like the speech of Nazis to support their free speech rights?
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
You keep referring to approve and like as if that’s the same as accepting their right to existence.
And you keep talking about nazi speech like the Nation of Islam and new black panther parties don’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
"If your support of a speech stops at what you dislike you fail to support all speech."
I would support DirectTV’s decision not to carry a channel I agree with as well, so stop with your pathetic whataboutism and strawmen.
I just happen not to support positions and people who are so dangerous, toxic and offensive that people feel the need to tell them to go elsewhere all the time.
"That’s where you open yourself to actual censorship."
I’ll deal with actual censorship when I see it. No matter how much you pathetic losers keep whining about it, a company deciding not to renew a business contract with a supplier is not censorship. In fact, there’s probably more of you Murdoch zombies peddling the same broken version of events that you’ve been programmed to believe than there were people who watched OANN in the first place. You see, the tell is not that you all say the same stuff, it’s that the misrepresentation always depends on believing the same false narrative that nobody gets to by looking at actual facts.
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
I highly doubt that. But that’s my opinion.
The rest of your political gibberish doesn’t apply. I made no comment nor position on the decision to drop OAN.
My commentary wasn’t about a business decision. It was about an individual praising the loss of the reach of a voice they disagreed with.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
why can’t people celebrate shitty speech losing some reach? how does celebrating shitty speech losing some reach equal the same thing as trying to silence all free speech? why is shitty speech owed any kind of reach?
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
See, what’s intriguing here is you generally make my point for me. You and Paul, and Toom.
“shitty”
I doubt the people who watched the network thought it was shitty. I’d say EWTN is shitty but I’m not going to cheer if somebody dumps it. I think MSNBC is shitty speech as well. I’m not going to cheer when someone dumps it.
Both FoxNews and CNN run shitty speech every evening. But I won’t cheer their closure either.
“ shitty” is in the eye of the viewer
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
why does having an opinon on speech that can still be spoken outside of the one place it’s been baned from threaten free speech? why can’t people dislike shitty speech from shitty people and still support the right of those people to say that speech? why does that shitty speech need as wide a reach as possible to be protected?
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
The only "point" you’ve ever made is your hereditary dementia is well advanced.
Re: Re: Re:36 Re:
"I highly doubt that"
Doubt all you want, you’re lying if you state I have any other opinion on the subject.
"It was about an individual praising the loss of the reach of a voice they disagreed with."
It was about the spread of lies and misinformation no longer being propped up by the corporation that paid for them to do that. The thing is, I don’t have to rely on that for things I agree with to be communicated. Why do the opinions you agree with depend on such things?
Re: Re: Re:37 Re:
I wasn’t aware that the did. Since you didn’t mention what opinions your reference I can’t exactly respond with any direction.
Re: Re: Re:38 Re:
I’m just curious. The subject is that a network set up specifically to broadcast propaganda, that’s known to host at least one Sputnik employee, has a lost a contract with the company that was ordered by its former owner to host it once that owner could no longer call the shots. Some people are rightly happy about that.
Your addled mind has converted that into "people are happy that speech they disagree with has been shut down". That’s not really true on any objective level, but I just wanted to take it a step further. The speech I agree with and listen to does not require astroturfing, specific propaganda networks to be installed to counter free speech that naturally occurs elsewhere or employees of foreign propaganda networks.
Your reaction here, and your already stated media consumption, suggests that you agree on some level with what OANN was shovelling. If true, I’m simply curious why such things are necessary for your point of view to be heard and not for others.
If not true, you simply appear to be somewhat mistaken as to what OANN is and why people are reacting this way, which simply suggests that you should spend less time whining and inventing false comparisons with MSNBC (a network nobody here has said they watch, despite it being the pre-programmed whataboutism used by Murdoch drones), and more time actually reading the words other people write. Understanding what others are actually saying creates less opportunities for threadbare strawmen to attack, but it will leave you less confused and wrong.
Re: Re: Re:39 Re:
Wow. Ohkay, I apologise for tossing you in with the typical Democrat drones. You do have a mind of your own!
I’m not sure what you gather from my media choices since, politic wise it’s limited to bright art and NYT. Sorry but the daily reading consists of Fangoria, Gore Zone, Dread central…
ChainAnalysis and the like CPUnand Macintosh.
Seriously, Honestly… I don’t go ice one fuck, forget two, about what makes anyone happy. Fuck your fuck your donkey and fuck the virgin!
I like extreme brutal horror. And I will spend my life trolling anyone who disagrees with that.
But if you want my copies of August Underground, Serbian Film, or K3, over my dead body and the second amendment protects that. It also says if I want to eat a fucking squirrel fuck off.
It tastes like shite btw PSA.
Serious, I’ll fuck anything willing. So I’m excluded from any Judaism christo islami bs fuck cloud god cult up front.
Re: Re: Re:40 Re:
Heavy night on the sauce, huh?
Re: Re: Re:41 Re:
Every night.
two 19oz
Beef balll Swedish meatballs with noodles and sauce
12oz organic vanilla been peŵeutpkiuzfjzręuhdfãįœùu
Fuck all life drinks vodka wodka till die. Boom boom
Happy? Fuck off
Re: Re: Re:28 Re:
"in reality when someone is removed from a platform their voice absolutely has been silenced – on that platform"
…which is meaningless to the point of triviality if there are other platforms to choose from and/or they are not being blocked by the government.
OANN want to use DirectTV’s property. DirectTV have chosen not to renew the contract that would allow this to happen. That is their right, and it’s not a problem until all the whiny children come out in droves to pretend that their "rights" are violated because they can’t co-opt someone else’s property against their will.
I’m sorry that adult debate based on verifiable facts is yet again too much of a "leftist" concept to you, but a contract decision made between a private company and one of its suppliers is not a free speech issue, no matter how much you scream about it.
Re: Re: Re:29 Re:
Liars like Lostinlodos oppose Free Speech in favor of Free Reach.
Re: Re: Re:30 Re:
Now now. That’s not accurate in either sense.
I have minimal concern about some voice being silenced at some private local.
But I will not pretend that a silencing hasn’t happened. It most certainly has. And you’re free to have an opinion as to that silencing just as I am.
My opinion is that supporting private silencing is against the premise of free speech. It’s my opinion.
I agree the right is necessary for freedom; but I have no requirement to like it.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
why does suporting one voice being "silenced" in one place equal hating free speech? why do we have to support platforming shitty speech? why do you want people shitting on your front lawn?
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
Why do you modify what I said? I didn’t say hate. I said it lessens support.
Re: Re: Re:31 Re:
"My opinion is that supporting private silencing is against the premise of free speech"
Again, nobody’s being silenced, you fucking idiot. DirectTV have simply chosen not to sell their amplifiers to OANN after its current contract ends. They are still free to speak via other means, you’re just not allowed to force tother people to amplify it for them if they don’t wish to do so.
We can still hear you, OANN, and any other lying whiny bitch who feels the need to lie about this issue. As I’ve said before, for people who are being "silenced", I hear you idiots alll the fucking time.
Re: Re: Re:32 Re:
You are a partisan slave, aren’t you.
If a location had a sound and that sound was removed from that location then the sound has been silenced at that location.
I remember a particular song that expressed this quite well. As there is little doubt you bow to a neon god as you cheer the reduction of reach.
How’s that to? Oh… The Sound of Silence?
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
why is OAN owed any reach? how does DirecTV droping OAN affect only OAN’s right to be heard? why is a bar owner tossing out an asshole the same thing as censorship to you?
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
"If a location had a sound and that sound was removed from that location then the sound has been silenced at that location."
OK, so let’s take your drooling nonsense here at face value.
So what? You don’t have a right to speak at a specific location, except maybe at certain public venues (government owned, not private property that allows some public access). If the owners or other patrons tell you to STFU and go elsewhere to speak that’s their right, and your desire to keep being a loudmouthed dickhead at that specific location does not override them.
So, no rights have been affected, no matter how much you whine that you wish it were true. Nobody has been truly silenced, because they’re still allowed to speak literally anywhere else. If your speech is so sensitive, that you can only effectively speak by co-opting a specific piece of property that’s owned by someone else against their will, that’s on you.
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
Once again you totally ignore my commentary and substitute your own.
My comment isn’t about OAN and the satellite. It was about the cheerleading of the loss of reach.
The problem isn’t private business decisions. It’s blindly praising them when they fit your personal view.
Re: Re: Re:35 Re:
"The problem isn’t private business decisions. It’s blindly praising them when they fit your personal view."
Except, again, that’s not what’s really happening. You’re substituting your own imagined parameters to what others are saying and whining as if people wouldn’t act the same way if some imaginary agitprop network on a different side of the political spectrum had the same problem.
This is, once again, a product of your weak imagination, and while it’s a tactic often employed by weak-willed right-wingers to pretend that people aren’t simply facing consequences for their own actions, it’s never actually the case.
Re: Re: Re:33 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:34 Re:
What’s funny here is that it’s not really a partisan issue unless you have chosen to believe that people would react in a completely different way if their "team" is affected. Which seems to be way more of an issue of projection on the side of people complaining about this as if it were somehow a free speech issue (which it’s not) than anything that is proven by actual activity.
The only way we would possibly be able to tell is if there was a similar issue with some "leftist" network, but since that’s not happening and there doesn’t even seem to be a comparable network outside of desperate attempts to draw false equivalence between MSNBC and OANN, we would just need to wait to see if that ever happens.
In the meantime, all I can say is that the poorly and hastily constructed strawmen that Lobos insists on attacking instead of my actual positions might be partisan, but they rarely reflect things I actually say or believe. My actual position is that if a supplier decides to not renew a contract with another network then that’s up to them, and whatever criticisms I have of that decision won’t devolve into "but mah freeze peach!" nonsense no matter how much I agree with the output of that particular network.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
That may be true but the perception for why I climbed that hill is wrong here.
I make no comment on the service being booted by a private company.
Rather I come to slay the false prophet who declares freedom for all and cheers the loss of an outlet.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
"I come to slay the false prophet who declares freedom for all and cheers the loss of an outlet."
why is losing an outlet the same thing as losing 1A rights? why should anyone be required to carry OAN’s speech?
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
Threatening suicide, nice.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
Haha. Hahaha. ???? ????
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
"Because ultimately I have a deep rooted support for freedom of expression."
Unless that expression is "I’m glad that outfit finally got ditched, and we didn’t have to wait till their defamation lawsuits are settled", in which case you’re completely opposed to it.
"And I’ll be damned if I ignore someone praising the silencing of others."
Like most right-wing shitbags, they’re not being silenced. They’ll still find ways to whine, very loudly at that. People are simply supporting the idea that the AT&T funded propaganda network are not being given a free ride once the network hosting them had a real choice about it.
"It’s not the choice of dumping a station I protest here; rather the joy shown when something gets removed."
Then, you must have been really incensed when Trump called Kaepernick and son of a bitch for protecting racial inequality and demanded that he be kicked off the team, right? Which essentially happened after that season had finished. Or, the many other examples of people like you doing exactly the same, or worse.
Of course not, you moronic hypocrite, you.
Re: Re: Re:13
As I’ve said before, I like referring to that bullshit as the “I have been silenced” fallacy.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
I’m looking forward to the upcoming shitstorm over Dan Bongino.
Well, "looking forward" is slightly sarcastic, but in case anyone missed it the Fox News host has just been kicked off from YouTube. In short, he tried spreading COVID disinformation, then when that account was suspended for a week he tried using a different account to spread the same lies. YouTube noticed, so now all his channels have been banned permanently. You know, because of the open and repeated breaking of the terms of his accounts.
It’s going to be great when he uses the full force of the Fox propaganda network, combined with his channel on right-wing shitbag refugee site Rumble and whatever other platforms among his many choices he chooses to use to whine about being "silenced". But, I suspect we won’t be able to avoid him talking in the near future, as a direct result of him being silenced so much.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Funny how nobody not on potent hallucinogens sees such fantasies as you do.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel’s Reach”
finally
That’s a key word there. One not necessary for the title unless it’s intended to be an addendum to the statement. An addition.
A declaration!
‘It has finally come to pass’
An non-biased title would be “DirectTV chooses not to renew OAN contract.”
But even as is, the dislike of the channel could have been without the speech aspect if finally, was left out.
The choice of word makes it clear there is joy in the non-renewal.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Yes, and?
Are you trying to say that people shouldn’t state an opinion?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
"‘It has finally come to pass’"
Because both the author of the OP and a great many people here are feeling a sense of relief that DirectTV no longer honors OANN with their business. If the guy who kept holding loud klan rallies in the next city block was finally evicted by his landlord I wager most of his neighbors would cheer over it. And no sane or sensible person would object to the outspoken opinion of the community. This is no different.
Implying that it is means you’re making assumptions out of context. Sure, the headline does imply, very strongly, that Karl isn’t exactly a fan of OAN. That, in my book, is just the author of the OP making his viewpoint visible from line one.
I don’t have to respect the intolerant, liars, frauds, bigoted or racist. In fact, Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance is pretty explicit I must not. I don’t have to encourage their ability to effectively spread their message. What I must do is to not tolerate government making it impossible for them to speak anywhere.
If a group has made itself so impossible that the only place left for them is to plant their soapbox in the wilderness where audience is scarce then that is just the consequence of their choice to be assholes.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Again I generally agree with you.
But, I will still stand on my soap box and point out, here be a false lord of freedom. One who supports only speech he agrees with. One who defends only what he likes.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
"I will still stand on my soap box and point out, here be a false lord of freedom. One who supports only speech he agrees with. One who defends only what he likes."
At which point did you decide that other people’s freedom to an audience overruled your right not to listen? Or to be more specific, overrules your personal right to draw a sigh of relief that people only invested ion grifting aren’t given a platform by your local mall anymore?
Your opinion is literally that we should be ashamed over our opinion. Which is, in itself, fine.
But arguing from authority by invoking "freedom of speech" to undercut our freedom of speech is, I believe, what has a lot of commenters here up in arms. And rightly so.
Now here’s the thing; An argument focused around observable fact – that’s a debate.
An argument focused around assertions in defiance of facts – that’s just people beating each other around the ears with their respective agendas.
Our assertion here is that OAN doesn’t bring a point of view. They bring a false narrative and as such their absence from DirectTV isn’t to be lamented anymore than the cancellation of a bad TV series.
Yours seems to be that they offer actual speech of worth to the public debate and as such their loss is lamentable, irrespective that their whole purpose is to derail debates.
This is the glaring difference of opinion we’re seeing here.
And I have to point out that reality thus far backs our point of view. The Paradox Of Tolerance is very real and thus a society centered around reason should not show tolerance to those who advocate the abolition of reason.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
What ultimately drives my concerns on speech is how many times in my life “the man” has come for my pleasures.
D&D. Doom. Harry Potter. GTA. Halloween, Faces of Death. Erotica. Porn. Anime. Hentai.
I have a serious problem with that. And I recognise that idea of “mission creep” will eventually come for what it isn’t supposed to.
It’s simply what happens.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, no. Not usually. TV show cancellations don’t get news articles that often.
But I was up in arms over Enterprise and Stargate, both Atlantis, and Universe.
It still stings the way Primeval was cut.
Chicago Justice had a lot of promise!
Boston Legal died too soon.
But I’m not “up in arms” at all. Personally it doesn’t have anything to do with me. I’ve never had access to OAN on broadcast.
Generally I know very little of their content other than what liberal writers say and how they’re defended by conservative responses.
My entry here was the headline:
Like it’s a good thing to silence someone you don’t like. Not just ignore it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"Personally it doesn’t have anything to do with me. I’ve never had access to OAN on broadcast."
Then the question is why you’re trying to defend them, given that their viewing figures were known to be pretty low and as such there could have been many non-political reasons to can them and AWE.
"Generally I know very little of their content other than what liberal writers say and how they’re defended by conservative responses."
Which is rich coming from you. You jumped straight to "MSNBC is a propaganda network", even though I can’t personally remember the last time they were mentioned by anyone who wasn’t a right-wing shill trying desperately to give a "whatabout" in response to someone criticising Fox/OANN/Newsmax/whatever.
Even by your own standard, you’re as bad as the people you criticise while pretending to be better than them, and even then it doesn’t occur to you that most people watch MSNBC and CNN as often as you claim to watch OANN.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
… protecting their right to speech as a voice?
Or that the same people who make claims of “finally” would be crying to anyone who is within earshot if it went off the air?
That the same people who jump on “finally” would be jawing about the evils of the world if a liberal network was cut?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
how did AT&T stop OAN from speaking?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
They didn’t. In fact, given that AT&T funded their creating and DirectTV ditched their sorry asses the moment that they were not part of AT&T any longer, it’s arguable that AT&T were the only reason they were speaking in the first place.
I’m sure that if someone at AT&T cares enough for it to continue, they can provide a platform themselves , but I suspect that interested parties are already moving on to the next grift.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
"… protecting their right to speech as a voice?"
They still have that right, they just can’t use the platform that a supplier has decided not to continue to contract with them to supply.
"That the same people who jump on “finally” would be jawing about the evils of the world if a liberal network was cut?"
Depends on the network and reasoning. I’m sure that if it were a naked propaganda outlet that’s going to be in serious financial trouble in the near future as a result of lies spread that have caused actual damages to both other companies and potentially democracy itself, most on the left would be happy to be rid of such damaging embarrassment. But, we’ll have to wait for such a thing to exist first on a similar wide platform before we can judge your strawmen and whataboutism.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"Like it’s a good thing to silence someone you don’t like. Not just ignore it."
Context.
Neither in spirit nor letter does 1A apply to OAN. Not unless the state walks in to suppress them by making their right to speak illegal or unlawful.
This is the lifeguard finally removing the unpleasant asshole who saw fit to piss in the theme park pool on a regular basis while ranting about how the Kenyan Muslim ate his baby. Even if no one present was regularly swimming in that pool the fact that most people are happy that person is gone from that theme park isn’t anything to lament.
Mike is free to express his personal approval. You are free to dislike that approval. But if you do we are of course similarly free to point out that your argument has its head up its own ass.
Re: millions will dump direct
…said nobody capable of rational independent thought, ever. As Lostcause also proves below.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: millions will dump direct
Ye fool.
You’re human progression lands you clearly in the religious and philosophical burnings of olde.
If you don’t understand it burn it.
If you don’t agree burn it.
Be it books or people.
Here’s a bit of an ‘I’m better’ moment!
I probably speak more languages than you know exist. Including dead and limited ones.
I’ve studied religion and philosophy through the ages
Be it the Republican army of god or the progressive atheist commune… you’re all fools enslaved to your master.
That you would chose to lump me in with Republicans yet again proves you have no independent thought.
I make no opinion on content here other than it’s right to exist.
While you cry and many republicans rejoice for the coming closure and failure of CNN I recognise the need for the left lean against fox’s right lean.
How long do you think they will survive whilst bleeding money?
Every closure of voice should be considered a wound upon free speech.
Re: Re: Re: millions will dump direct
"If you don’t understand it burn it."
That’s not a problem here. The thing about OAN is that we do understand it. It’s yet another dystopian TV series which got cut because of a niche viewership and unpopularity.
Sorry, Lostin, but I suggest that context matters and that you have a number of better hills to die on. This…isn’t one of those.
I must confess to some confusion. Every time Trump and his cult comes up you’re an avid defender. But many of your opinions in the past might as well have come from a card-carrying DSA member. The only time I’ve seen anything similar is in people so disappointed Bernie wasn’t given the candidacy they went for Trump hoping once the US burns it’ll take the corruption in both parties with it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, but that’s the funny thing about fires: Leave them uncontrolled long enough and they’ll burn everybody. (Same goes for viral pandemics, too.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 millions will dump direct
Your not far off. But there’s also the group that would never vote for HRC. Ever!
But for the Sanders block it wasn’t that he wasn’t “given” the election but that the DNC literally made sure he could not get it. Not once but twice.
There may not have been wide spread fraud in 16 and 20 but there was definitely wide spread corruption in the DNC in 15, 16, 19, and 20.
Re: Re: Re:3 millions will dump direct
"Your not far off. But there’s also the group that would never vote for HRC. Ever! "
That explains a lot, really. I honestly don’t get the hate for Hillary personally. The DNC candidate for president is almost invariably just a smartphone casing. Aside from the color and pattern there’s no functional difference between the actual politics pursued by her, Biden, Buttigieg and Yang.
"But for the Sanders block it wasn’t that he wasn’t “given” the election but that the DNC literally made sure he could not get it. Not once but twice."
…because Bernie is a social democrat. Or at least that’s what europeans would call it – and how actual US marxists refer to him, no matter that he’s operating under a democratic socialist banner. Honestly I sometimes wonder if there’s any clearly defined word in politics americans won’t butcher and redefine just for the sheer hell of it.
I don’t know what to tell you. I can see pretty clearly to which extent "classic" republicans end up marching in lockstep with democrats when it comes to blocking any actual progress, leaving the difference in rhetoric being the sole divisor.
But I must humbly hold that the current GOP is most definitely not classic republicans. Nixon and McCarthy look like centrist-right democrats in comparison. Them taking power doesn’t just mean the current political order burns down.
It’s all very well to pin your hopes of something better eventually rising from the ashes but both postwar Germany and Bosnia can testify that that method of refitting your mode of government comes at a terrifying price no sane person would want to pay no matter the circumstances.
"But for the Sanders block it wasn’t that he wasn’t “given” the election but that the DNC literally made sure he could not get it. Not once but twice."
The problem with being an armchair historian is that certain patterns become bloody predictable after a while. The democrats are still reenacting Hindenburg in the Last Days of the Weimar because they’re too stuck to realize that the next mob to come shouting for liberal blood is going to get it. Theirs, to be precise.
Unless they start delivering.
Re: Re: Re:4 millions will dump direct
That’s exactly my point.
Looking back at the statistical vote vs count.
More votes for trump than voting Republicans.
It wasn’t so much Trump as it was a big “just no” to HRC.
Which is why he lost in 20.
A carefully crafted limited engagement campaign protected Biden from the public eye. Those that just wanted something else not the status quo didn’t get to see behind the curtain.
The mistake they lean towards now is the potential of running here again.
The stubborn stupidity is going to put, maybe Trump, but likely far worse, in total power.
I’m no fan of the Republican Party. And definitely dislike, to the extreme, the far right.
But I’d vote for nearly anyone over here.
I’d explain the independent hatred of her, if you really don’t follow. But the fact is where it comes to some politicians—she’s one— we’d rather watch the world burn.
Re: Re: Re:5 millions will dump direct
"I’d explain the independent hatred of her, if you really don’t follow. But the fact is where it comes to some politicians—she’s one— we’d rather watch the world burn."
From what I get she’s the perfect representative of the democrat side of political grift; strip away all the GOP rhetoric and red herrings and we’re still left with Hillary being a repetitive liar openly changing her message to fit whatever desired narrative she thinks the public expects. That much became clear even abroad just following the high points of the 2016 campaign.
"A carefully crafted limited engagement campaign protected Biden from the public eye. Those that just wanted something else not the status quo didn’t get to see behind the curtain. "
I hate to have to tell you this but…the only reason this works is because almost every voting american is, uh, how to put this…unwilling to set aside ten minutes googling the history of the candidate. Even I know Biden’s historical role, ever since he became Obama’s VP – being the entrenched white old conservative moderate never making waves to counterbalance the dynamic young black man.
The problem with Biden is that although his positives count actually caring – he’s empathic, acknowledged even by many of his enemies – he also has a history of Bad judgment calls and is most definitely a representative of the washington elites.
Unlike a lot of politicians this is the sort of guy you’d want as a neighbor. But probably not in charge of your city. Because his wide circle of friends include Wall Street. And he will do them favors which enable them to screw people.
I think the democrats were facing a watershed moment. Either to meaningfully embrace socialism to the point where meaningful change actually happens…or stand there surprised when recommending the US working class "Qu’ils mangent de la brioche" produces a march on the Bastille rather than the usual response.
I don’t know what to tell you. As bad as some democrats may be, the next republican candidate will be worse. It’ll either be Trump or someone less inept. The world might not burn but the US you’ll live in after a GOP victory in 22 and 24…is not going to be one where your national charter has any meaning anymore.
At the same time more democrat victories will just put you guys further on your knees unless by some miracle the 2024 DNC rolls out Bernie as the candidate and gives him both house and senate to play with. That would take for the democrats to realize that these next few elections are likely to be about their actual lives rather than their careers though, so I’m none too sanguine about that.
Re: Re: Re:6 millions will dump direct
The problem for people like me is that there are only two camps in politics that win elections at the national level. And they exist in both parties.
The likes of Clinton and Cheney who are top down pseudo-communists who wish to have sole control over money and dictate who gets what. The ones who are only there to get rich elsewhere.
And the likes of Cortez and Xander who want to strip all wealth and any chance of gaining it.
I have no problem with wealth. I do have a problem with greed.
The thing with Sanders was he really was after greed, not wealth. Which is why the party rigged the system to keep him out.
The one thing many of us independents liked in Trump was the unlikelihood he could be swayed by big money donors.
Someone who would look at the gold brick road of post-political options and yawn.
Someone who would not be swayed by someone else’s money.
But that’s the thing.
We’re a swing vote.
To borrow from philosophy:
We’re the group likely to vote for a member of the Church of Satan preaching ‘do as thou wilt’ over anyone who says ‘do as I say’.
Civilised anarchy? Maybe. But principally it’s the one least likely to remain lockstep. For better or worse: the one most likely disruptive to the ruling-class status-quo!
When a society fails to change and adapt it becomes stagnant. And we wind up with the 80s-2000s of two parties one team.
Obama was an outsider. Trump was an outsider.
Re: Re: Re:7 millions will dump direct
"The likes of Clinton and Cheney who are top down pseudo-communists who wish to have sole control over money and dictate who gets what. The ones who are only there to get rich elsewhere."
Ok…take it from someone who is a leftist – Clinton and Cheney are about as "communist" as you and I are Martian. Given how both most democrats and all of the GOP have fed the US public a steady diet of lies where everything they don’t like is "communist" or "socialist" I’m not surprised to discover that some horrifying misconceptions exist there.
I suggest a quick glance over at "The Political Compass" – google it. Cheney and Clinton – and most others close to that camp – are very hard right, by definition; They adhere to and push for retaining status quo. Honestly, I’d suggest you read up on marxism so you can at least identify what is a socialist or communist…and what is most definitely not. Spoiler alert – it won’t be what you think it is.
Or, if you want an easier way than that, go to youtube and look for some guy named "Second Thought" – might be better to see how a genuine dyed-in-wool Marxist sees the world.
Another spoiler up front – the term "left" and "right" originated from the classic divide in parliaments where representatives of nobility sat on the right side and the proles on the left. The original meaning was meant to illustrate the struggle between progressive liberals and conservative feudal nobility. And it still is, I think. I don’t see much of a difference between a US single mother locked to working three jobs on minimum wage and the indentured serf of the 15th century. Both have the choice of accepting horrible conditions or starving.
"The thing with Sanders was he really was after greed, not wealth. Which is why the party rigged the system to keep him out. "
Although there’s a difference it’s not as big as you’d think. The thing is that Sanders wanted actual change. Hence why the dems closed ranks to keep him out. Same as with Andrew Yang who was so successfully frozen out people forgot he was even standing. There are other examples.
Here’s the thing I’m seeing. Your often expressed opinions are all over the place. As with Cheney and Clinton being "communist" I’m thinking the reason for that might be because as with every other american there’s been a concerted effort pushed by both parties to make sure no one even knows the terminology of left-right ideologies or has any clue what those terms mean.
So i’m positing something of a challenge, if you have the time. There’s a website called "The Political Compass". It has the charts of exactly where numerous politicians worldwide are on the right-left, liberal-authoritarian scale. And a test questionnaire which tells you exactly where your opinions land you. Take an hour’s time and fill it out.
My suspicion is you’ll end up leftwards of Bernie. If that’s the case you might want to start reading up on why your opinions end up placing you where you end up.
Re: Re: Re:8 millions will dump direc
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
I don’t doubt that. Every one of these multi point tests makes me liberal. The only “conservative” aspect of my beliefs lays in defensive positions.
On tests that dig into morality and beliefs more than this one does I tend to be so far liberal as to shock even people who ‘think’ they know me.
I prefer to concern with today over tomorrow. Which stabs the progressive mindset of looking to the future.
I prefer to go after the source of money rather than the destination: that puts me at odds with the Democrat proper.
And a true social base. That puts me at odds with the whole of primary politics in this country.
My use of communism for the likes of Clinton is based not on the definition but there practice in reality. It creates a money king who dictates. And that’s exactly what Clinton has proven to be her goal.
“Do as I say pleb”!
Re: Re: Re:9 millions will dump d
"My use of communism for the likes of Clinton is based not on the definition but there practice in reality. It creates a money king who dictates."
Every time I hear that I die a little inside. The term applicable for Clinton, Cheney, and most of the US body politic would be pure leftist-speak;
Or in more modern american "Fat cats who know what side of their bread is buttered".
Also see "ratchet effect". The minority on the winning side ofd the rat race of which they have become an integral driving force and which they have no interest at all to dismantle.
Honestly, if americans are going to have a chance of ever organizing against the shit-show resulting in the current state of abject poverty much of the population is condemned to then you’re going to have to drop the one-liners and pick up a dictionary so at the very least you’re all speaking the same language.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is neither democratic, of the people, nor a republic. It’s just a sound byte meant to defleft from the fact that we’re talking about an ultra-autocratic dictatorship.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was neither a union, socialist, or really a republic. It all deflected from a communist uprising having been turned into a loosely ideologically motivated oligarchy. Stalin was about as much a communist as Mussolini.
Nationalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was neither representative of germans, the workers, nor socialist. But it did detract from their real agenda – ultra-nationalism and fascism.
And neither Clinton nor Cheney, nor most of the democrats are "leftist", even less so communist. That’s just something their political opponents, both inside and outside of that party, like to call them because due to the Red Scare that word sounds a lot like a more diplomatic version of "terrorist" or "pedo".
The bulk of that party is, in fact, extreme right wing as they protect the status quo by any means. The only reason Bernie and AOC are part of it is because in a two-party system you can’t win the
Essentially there are more or less two ways by which a country can complete a radical shift towards more socialist attitudes. Sweden used one way – unionization and a strong labor movement became a complete takeover as a new party dedicated to worker’s rights muscled in and shaped all the politics thereafter. This usually means a peaceful integration between commerce and ideology leading to the social democracy we have today. Exemplified in a great many thriving nations around the globe.
The other is when the establishment has rendered any such peaceful approach impossible. And as JFK put it, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The french, american, cuban and russian revolutions all went down this road.
That…is a gamble. Every revolution opens doors for the most repulsive of sociopaths. Robespierre, Mussolini and Stalin have as much a chance of getting to the top as a Thomas Paine, Gandhi or Mandela.
I think the US is currently practicing brinksmanship of the most dangerous kind. One way or the other radical change is coming. And the one hope of that change coming out in a much needed leftwards direction would require democrats to stop it with the ratchet job. Abandon any hope of retaining the status quo and satisfying the whims of the lobby. And I think that window of opportunity will close right after the 2020 elections…oops.
…or, as I see it, the likely outcome will be a hard turn due fascism as people pin their hopes on a Dear Leader to raise the land and the people. Something, I have to say, Dear Leaders aren’t that good at. Especially not when the role models of the current most likely one are Putin and Kim Jong-Un.
Re: Re: Re:10 millions will du
[Edit]
"The only reason Bernie and AOC are part of it is because in a two-party system you can’t win the…"
"…federal level positions you actually need to introduce real change.", that should have been.
Damn, I really need to review what I write better.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Forget not the slope!
Whilst you cheer for the fall of a station, forget not that you may be next.
If MSNBC disappears that would also be good for the country, and world.
But bad for communication.
OAN served as a right-wing conspiracy platform to counter the MSNBC left-wing conspiracy platform.
Only dictatorships exist in a real bubble.
Part of the drive for free speech involves countering arguments. No matter how fringe.
Being a champion for free speech demands you support the right of speech to exist. Start with the least popular!
Every time a voice is silenced it’s a blow to communication freedom.
If Microsoft bought Facebook and banned all anti-abortion discussion would you be happy? What if they banned next PlayStation and Switch discussions?
What if they started kicking users for selling non-Microsoft products. Then jettisoned the store/sales system all together? Because it’s easier to do that?
I weep ????
Not for who was silenced: but because someone was.
While you sit there and worry about the bill going up $2 form a merger… I worry about what will be cut with each one.
This is nothing more than another set of voices being silenced.
Re: Forget not the slope!
"Every time a voice is silenced it’s a blow to communication freedom."
No, a blow to communication freedom would be DirectTV being forced to keep a channel that it doesn’t want to host. A blow to communications freedom would be compelled speech, not a company deciding it no longer wants a particular business relationship.
"If Microsoft bought Facebook and banned all anti-abortion discussion would you be happy? What if they banned next PlayStation and Switch discussions?"
What if their servers were made of cheese and you had to eat fondue every time you wanted to post?
That makes as much sense as your drooling nonsense, even if you ignore that all that’s really happened here is a private business contract between 2 private entities not being renewed. OANN are free to continue operating as a business and to reach their audience. They just can’t use DirectTV’s platform to do so. They have many other options to operate.
But, as ever, as soon as private companies do something you don’t like, "libertarians" dive straight in to demand government control.
"Not for who was silenced: but because someone was."
If you people keep being silenced, why do I keep having to hear your moronic whining over figments of your weak imaginations? Should you be actually, you know, silent?
Re: Re:
It’s almost as if they’re conservatives who don’t want to own that label (and the associated baggage).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Forget not the slope!
You mistake me for someone else. I didn’t say anything about government control.
Nor anything about forced a peach such as mandating broadcasting.
Nay, all I said was another voice has been silenced.
I wasn’t. I’m right here. And have had no access to OAN. It’s not on Xfinity.
My opinion, or even knowledge, of a voice doesn’t change my support for all voices to speak and be heard.
Re: Re: Re: Forget not the slope!
That is not achievable via cable/satellite T.V., as the program hours available are limited. However, the Internet allows all voices to have a chance of being heard, if they will set up a means of distribution, and a means of gaining financial support. If the voice is extreme, that might involve setting up their own servers. What you keep referring to as silenced is actually somebody else deciding not to help a voice be heard, and invest money and time on something they do not support.
Re: Re: Re:2
To put it another way: Everyone has the right to free speech, but no one has the right to free reach—especially at the expense of others.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Although I support the right to be heard as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of others.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"Although I support the right to be heard as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of others."
Then, you support DirectTV’s actions to protect their business from any losses that might come from a contract with a supplier who may have difficulty continuing to provide value to their platform and/or might not be able to pay their bills during that time?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
The politicised headline. “Finally”.
That fanfare for the loss of another network.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So, you don’t have a problem with things that are happening, just the way people talk about them?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"That fanfare for the loss of another network."
You know how I keep saying you’ve got better hills to die on?
You’re currently on Hill 937, trying to be a hamburger.
Imagine, if you will, that you’ve got a neighbor. In hos yard there’s some person reenacting Orwell’s "two minute hate sessions" all day long. You can barely hear him in the distance and for the last year every other neighbor of yours has complained about that guy.
Finally your neighbor tosses that guy out.
Among the loud cheering, do you really turn to the next guy cheering and tell him "His contribution is a loss to be mourned, not a gain to be celebrated!"?
If you do – the analogue of your input here right now – I predict that your remaining neighbors will all be giving you funny looks henceforth.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
As long as his actions were legal, within the confines of noise regulations,…
Yes.
Honestly, yes. I don’t complain about the man dumping beets at the subway for a bit of cash. I don’t complain about mr fire and brimstone on the corner.
Yes, I would be saddened. If any of those examples came to an end.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yes. I made no comment on DirectTV at all.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
The article you’re commenting on is literally about a decision made by DirectTV. What did you think you were talking about?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Someone has been studying TP, but has not achieved the same level of changing the game whenever it looks like they might lose.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Ok… you can’t read a thread,
Or,
Your an idiot…
Maybe both.
The entirety of my post under this article is the author’s glowing joy and glee at the event.
I have made no comment, nor opinion, as to DT’s choice.
Only as to the writer of the title and less than unbiased wording of the article author as well. If they are not the same.
Though I’ve said before hiding beyond “Anonymous” Dora make you a “Coward”.
One thing, above all else: I don’t hide my views.
I study all and make my own opinion. Fuck anyone who demands I walk a party line.
(Fuck in the figurative sense unless they are willing and consenting; and supply std testing verification: papers please!).
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Read the comment you auto-fired on.
I took issue with the false premise of a poster who was inaccurate.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Someone compared you to Tero Pulkinnen, aka TP. I suppose to be fair, if I was getting equated to the Finnish nobody who thinks that programming a web browser-inbuilt 3D engine means that he’s entitled to the government of his country deepthroating him for the rest of his life, I’d rage too. But I’ll grant that you’re leagues ahead of that lunatic.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
"The entirety of my post under this article is the author’s glowing joy and glee at the event."
Yes, you have a problem with the way someone expressed their opinion about a decision made by DirectTV. Which still makes the story about DirectTV, no matter what you were hallucinating earlier when you said you didn’t comment on them.
Re: Re: Re:10
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion on an opinion blog~! The nerve of some people~!
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Now now.
It’s not the opinion… it’s the opinion in context to a site that constantly defends free speech.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
"it’s the opinion in context to a site that constantly defends free speech"
Someone here stated their opinion in response to a private business contract decision.
Where is the free speech issue?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
An entirely fact-based opinion, at that.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I made a point of calling out the creator of a headline that clearly cheers on the deplatforming of a voice simply because they disagree with it.
Regardless of what the contents of the article discussed. It could have been about patriot jellybeans or communist card games or two headed talking fish from outer space.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
"I made a point of calling out the creator of a headline that clearly cheers on the deplatforming of a voice simply because they disagree with it."
You’ve already loudly announced that you don’t know the history, and the person writing the article had the right to announced they’re happy that a business decision has gone the way they hoped it would.
Your need to distort facts until they fit your idiotic hallucinations about what you wish they meant does not change the nature of the facts.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
They’ve also proudly announced their total incompetence at judging the quality of news sources, and their lies to denigrate Karl only continue that trend.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Karl? Karl who?
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
The person you’re crying about using a word you disagree with.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
Ah. You just kind of tossed that in there.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Nobody "demands". You walk that line plenty clearly and get angry because you can’t stand the consequences.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Funny, no matter how many times I put forward the statement: where beyond gun rights and border security, do I show anything in common with Republicans, there’s always crickets.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
So DirecTV should not be forced to pay OAN for the burden of publishing their ‘news’. Dropping OAN is not just we don’t want your content, but also we don’t want to pay you for it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I fully agree.
Re: Re: Re: Forget not the slope!
"You mistake me for someone else. I didn’t say anything about government control."
Then, what is the problem? A private business has exercised their choice not to continue doing business with a supplier. That’s their right, and nobody can stop them unless either the government or the market steps in to stop them or punish them for it. The market seems OK with this, so what is your suggested alternative?
"Nay, all I said was another voice has been silenced."
Except, they haven’t. I can still hear them, and the people who repeat their messages.
"My opinion, or even knowledge, of a voice doesn’t change my support for all voices to speak and be heard."
OANN haven’t lost that ability. They’ve merely lost the ability to use DirectTV’s property to reach a certain audience. There’s plenty of other options available to them, and nowhere is an audience guaranteed in any right you might imagine you or they have.
Re: Re: Re:2 Forget not the slope!
Expected to see Lostinlodos strut in with pearls pre-clutched, spouting his usual "I’m not a Republican, but I’ll twist my own panties and jizz in them while fantasizing about Donald Trump kissing my anal sphincter if PaulT dares to besmirch his godhood" spiel… was not disappointed.
Re: Re: Re:3 Forget not the slope!
Nah, that’d be Restless94110.
Lostinlodos doesn’t seem that much in favor of Trump as he’s radically anti-establishment, and votes for anyone likely to see the current system burned to the ground.
Some of his arguments, in fact, fit those of an old 1970’s classical Leninist arguing that incremental change isn’t happening and by now the only meaningful change will come by torch and pitchfork.
I honestly can’t say he’s all that wrong. 1 in 10 americans are on food stamps. 40% of households would break from an unplanned $400 expense. A full-time 8 hour job on minimum wage isn’t enough to supply housing, transportation, basic medical insurance and food. half the country is one bad turn away from homelessness.
And while the GOP has actively pushed for making shit worse, democrats have shown pretty well they’re really unwilling to create meaningful change for the better. Something a few of Obama’s policies made abundantly clear.
Even so…Trump isn’t the answer any more than Hitler was the answer to the ailing Weimar. Yeah he’ll dismantle a lot of things but not anything supported by money. Under his regime the lobby will be writing all the bills without even the flimsy pretense of politics taking place.
Re: Re: Re:4 Forget not the slope!
This would have been a sensible point to make had Lostinlodos not, over hundreds of posts, made it very clear that he was a Trump fluffer even while Trump was in power, and drops "MAGA" quotes every so often because he thinks Techdirt readers are that easily triggered.
He’s radically anti-establishment, sure, but he’s more radically anti for some establishments more than others.
Re: Re: Re:5 Forget not the slope!
Quotes?
This is the very pedicle of American stupidity.
You can’t separate a choice on any one single issue from a platform of conformity.
As three different users have now shown I’m generally so far left I make sanders look right wing.
Your hate is in my vote, not my politics or beliefs.
That I think National defence is important? That I think some separation of countries is important?
Your inability to look at my actual words and comprehend is what is killing this country.
I don’t hold to any party. And no! I don’t want the country to burn. Just the pay to play system.
It’s you, and your counterparts, your collective, that are on track to destroy this country.
The constantly lumping of any trump voter as a “Republican”.
Because, again, here’s a simple fact. Two for you actually
Obama and Trump were both put in office by non-party voters.
Biden won as a fluke. Not theft or fraud. But simply politics: he was a sure re-elect so republicans didn’t vote.
Know what else happened on 20?
Those of us who believe in actual medical history also didn’t vote in person. Or at all.
But your play ti the party is going to screw over 60% of our population. Because your constant shite of party trump crap is going to elect one of the actual fascists to power to send a big olde fuck you to your type who can’t understand anything more than 0 or 1!
Re: Re: Re:6 Forget not the slope!
Believe what you want. If it makes you feel better blaming someone else for you becoming predictable, go ahead.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You don't have real news
You’re trying to censor your people that use your product and keep them from watching real news stations like real American voice and oan this is why your company is taking this is why I no longer have you. Enjoy your what you get for your choice.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
That is bull crap you got rid of the channel that gives the real news!!!!
This is a violation of the 2020 Net Neutrality Law.
Re:
Lol. No, it is not.
Everything you said is wrong.
As of 23 Apr 2022 it is being blocked by YouTube as well.