Louisiana's Attorney General Wants To Break Up Google Over 'Bias'
from the fairness-doctrine-gone-mad dept
The latest in this ridiculous political fight over the claimed, but not proven, “political bias” found in search results and social media is that Louisiana’s Attorney General says we should break up the big internet companies because of it. He’s not even hiding his unconstitutional anti-First Amendment reasons for doing so:
Landry says the internet giants are suppressing conservative agendas, stifling competition, and infringing on antitrust laws.
?This can?t be fixed legislatively,? Landry told The Advocate Tuesday. ?We need to go to court with an antitrust suit.?
Again, it’s not at all proven that the internet giants are “suppressing conservative agendas.” If they were, that would be quite remarkable, given that apparent “conservatives” control the White House, both houses of Congress, the judiciary and the vast majority of state houses. It would certainly then suggest that these internet companies aren’t very good at suppressing such an agenda if they really were attempting to do so (and, spoiler alert: they’re not).
But, of course, the larger point still stands: this is clearly a government official, looking to use not just executive power, but law enforcement powers, to intimidate companies regarding speech on their platforms. That is 100% unconstitutional. I already detailed a variety of cases that make this point, but it appears that law enforcement officials are going to ignore that, so long as they can politically grandstand on this issue.
But, just to flip this around: would Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry agree that Fox News or Breitbart should be hit with legal action for “suppressing liberal agendas?” Of course not.
Some will say that this is just politicians being politicians, and they’d have a point. But what’s absolutely astounding is that some on the other end of the political spectrum are jumping on this just because they so hate Google. Matt Stoller, from the Open Market Institute, has spent the past few years misrepresenting all sorts of arguments concerning the internet companies, and pushing for them to be broken up. He sits very far away from Landry politically, but apparently as long as a politician wants to break up the internet companies (even in violation of the First Amendment) that seems to be cool with him:
The Louisiana Attorney General is now saying he wants to break up Google and Facebook. Wow. #BUFA https://t.co/sYFe1kh5uj
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) September 19, 2018
After people pointed out to him that Landry was just playing partisan politics, Stoller responded by suggesting that maybe it’s for the wrong reasons, but at least someone is trying to break up these companies (despite there being no evidence to support such a move):
Lot of angry liberals saying he?s doing this for the wrong reasons. Ok. Fine. But Democratic AGs aren?t presenting the alternative on how to do this correctly. They are just supporting the status quo. https://t.co/hZXUZTyqt0
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) September 19, 2018
Lots of people have key issues that they think are important. For some that may be breaking up the big internet companies. But a general rule of thumb: if you have to spit on the First Amendment to get your wish, you’re doing it wrong.
Filed Under: antitrust, bias, jeff landry, monopoly, political bias
Companies: google
Comments on “Louisiana's Attorney General Wants To Break Up Google Over 'Bias'”
The party the parties need but won't have
One could argue that eliminating political parties could ameliorate such ideological initiatives (and I have and will continue to do so). But that action would not remove the tension between so called conservative (in their various flavors) and so called liberals (in their various flavors) or that fact that some exist as so called moderates (in their various flavors). It might help to exclude the power structures (party leadership, organization, influence, and therefore pressure). That could be a good thing.
The thing is, I don’t think it will stop anyone from actively listening to anyone who is not of their ideological persuasion. So what is the cure for closed mindedness? Teaching about tolerance in peoples formative years might help, but that would necessitate there be existing tolerance in the school systems, which we know does not currently exist. Which leaves what?
Re: The party the parties need but won't have
#1. Stop calling it closed mindedness.
It’s okay to have made a decision about life and to disagree with others. You are right there is no such thing as multiculturalism… but if people can agree to stop trying to force their ideas of life onto others through the lens of “government” then we might have a chance.
Political parties are the same problem and poison that racism is, but we never teach that anywhere, instead we “elevate” tribalism!
Re: Re: The party the parties need but won't have
Closed mindedness could be likened to bipartisanship. What is attempted now. Everyone talking past the others, not listening and only striving toward their own agenda, everyone else be damned. That is why I call it closed mindedness, no one listens.
What we need is non-partisanship. Where people listen to each other with open minds, leaving their prejudices and ideologies aside and doing what is right for the majority. Doing right for everyone is a panacea, but if one leaves out their ideology and prejudices when making decisions, those decisions would likely be better.
It is sort of like talking about supreme beings. One side promotes their supreme being. Another side promotes their different supreme being. Still another side promotes their different still supreme being. And yet another side promotes that the concept of supreme beings is just ridiculous. So when one of those sides makes decisions based upon the dogma that is dictated by adherents to their supreme being it is possible that that decision is antithetical to anyone who is not partial to that flavor of adherent. When someone says in ‘supreme beings we trust’, everyone else has to ask, who’s or which supreme being? The point is, that decisions need to be made without reference to any supreme being as there may be moralistic values in ones thinking, there leaves little room for reason, or anyone who is not of that particular moral persuasion.
The same goes for partisanship and its band-aid cure bipartisanship, and why non-partisanship is necessary for all of our well being, which necessitates listening and leaving ideology and prejudice out of the decision making process. So except for #1, we are in agreement.
Re: Re: Re: The party the parties need but won't have
“Closed mindedness could be likened to bipartisanship.”
Disagree, the allegiance people have to their tribes is not the same as having a closed or open mind, which is why I think calling it closed minded is a specious comment.
“What we need is non-partisanship. Where people listen to each other with open minds, leaving their prejudices and ideologies aside and doing what is right for the majority.”
If they had such capacities they would never have given way for a political party. Sorry, but people are all full of bias and life decisions (that which you call closed minded).
Regarding what is right for the majority, that is “democracy speech” and results in a suicidal despotism. Democracy does not work and never will.
Regarding Supreme beings, I am a Christian, but I do not like the “institutionalization” of Christianity that all the churches have created. Christians have done more damage to their own brand than all atheists combined. Regarding morals, I cannot uncouple morals from the concept of a supreme being because otherwise there is no such thing as morals. Some people are okay with murder, slavery, lying, violence, and subversion to justify their own ends.
The end result is that “might makes right” and no one can be held accountable for their iniquity, because anyone can make up their own morals on the spot and enforce them upon others if they have the power and there is no way each person can know the full law of arbitrary moral equivalence. Everyone is guilty by reason of ignorance because it is not possible for everyone to know anyone’s full moral mapping.
“The same goes for partisanship and its band-aid cure bipartisanship, and why non-partisanship is necessary for all of our well being, which necessitates listening and leaving ideology and prejudice out of the decision making process. So except for #1, we are in agreement.”
I doubt we are in agreement. We just happen to agree that there is a problem, not likely on the solution to it however.
Re: Re: Re:2 The party the parties need but won't have
You may not be able to, but plenty of other people can. Plenty of atheists live morally; they just do not believe that their morals are divinely inspired. Rather, they try to create a system of morality based on ethics.
And, for the largest part of history, those people believed that such things were "moral" in the exact sense that you mean it – that they had the stamp of approval from a supreme being.
It’s written into Torah, Jewish law (and part of the Bible), that one of God’s people may only enslave another for seven years, and, when that period has ended, the slave must be given enough provisions to start a life of freedom. For centuries, though, Christians enslaved other Christians well past that time, and then enslaved their Christian children, and then, when forced to free them, far from giving them the means to subsist in freedom, kept them in bondage that was slavery in all but name.
The government of the United States of America, a purportedly Christian country, with the vast majority of its leaders claiming Christian faith, practices all of evils you rail against: murder, slavery, lying, violence, and subversion to justify its own ends, and the vast majority of its supposedly mostly-Christian populace doesn’t speak up in protest, because the people being murdered/enslaved/subverted are foreign, incarcerated, communist, or worship a different god.
"Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them," says the President, before setting off a war that kills hundreds of thousands of Afghanis in order to avenge the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
If that’s true, if God is not neutral between those ideals, He is surely on the side of fear and cruelty; nothing else can explain the world we’re currently in.
Re: Re: Re:3 The party the parties need but won't have
You have more than failed to understand.
“Plenty of atheists live morally” is the same as a slave owner, child molester, murderer, drunkard, thief, or liar saying they live morally.
In short… everyone lives morally, because in the darkness of their own hearts they will justify all manor of evil.
“The government of the United States of America, a purportedly Christian country, with the vast majority of its leaders claiming Christian faith, practices all of evils you rail against: murder, slavery, lying, violence, and subversion to justify its own ends, and the vast majority of its supposedly mostly-Christian populace doesn’t speak up in protest, because the people being murdered/enslaved/subverted are foreign, incarcerated, communist, or worship a different god.”
Lots of people Claim a faith they do not follow, this is hardly a “Christian” or USA problem. Humans of all walks do this, pointing out Christians is irrelevant OR just means you are bigoted. There are all sorts of bad people in every group and a large percentage of the really bad ones are over represented in their leaders because evil people seek and desire power. The worst evil Christian is just as bad as the worst evil Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Norse, or insert your favorite hated religion with a leader here.
“If that’s true, if God is not neutral between those ideals, He is surely on the side of fear and cruelty; nothing else can explain the world we’re currently in.”
I do not have any intention of getting into a religious debate here. But you clearly hate God with degree of anger that I would probably only fan the flames of.
You don’t have any moral authority, there is no such human that walks this earth that does! Humans can only obtain power and then enslave others with it.
Re: Re: Re:4 The party the parties need but won't have
No disagreement. I fail to see how this differs for a religious person.
I pointed out Christians because the US is a Christian country, and Americans tend to think that that makes them more moral than everyone else. You’re right that I could have pointed out any other theocracy on the planet and made the same argument; I chose the US only because I figured you to be an American (my apologies for the insult if I was incorrect), and Christianity for the same reason (again, apologies for insulting you if that is not the case).
And, once more, I agree that the worst evil Christian is just as bad as the worst evil atheist (etc.); I just think that the best atheist (etc.) is also on par with the best Christian. I think you’d disagree with that.
I don’t hate God; I deny His existence. Or, at least, I deny the existence of the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God of Christianity, because if He existed, His followers wouldn’t have enslaved each other until nearly nineteen centuries after Christ’s birth, in direct defiance of the Old Testament, and then suddenly come upon the realization that hey, slavery is bad. I can’t say the same of the deities of any other pantheons, because I frankly don’t know enough to make such a denial. Which, I suppose, is another reason why I attacked Christianity directly: I know that what the US is doing is contrary to Christian values because I’m familiar with those values (and attempt to live by them even though I’ve left the faith). I’ve heard, say, Islamic scholars speak against forcing women to wear all-covering clothing, but I haven’t read the Qu’ran, so I don’t know that that’s against the teachings of Mohammed (PBOH).
Agreed! Nor any being beyond it. Morals and ethics are a human creation, constantly in motion, and no one person should be able to force his own upon anyone else, save to prevent harm to himself or others.
Now that, that I can’t agree with.
As Fred Rogers said:
Not all of these people are compelled to help by the fear of hellfire; I’d imagine the vast majority of them aren’t. Most of them help because they care, because helping is what they do, what they were raised to do. And that goes for those that believe in the FSM or His equivalents as those who do not.
Re: Re: Re:4 The party the parties need but won't have
Oh, one more thing…
While I maintain that I don’t hate God, I must admit that I’m not overly fond of some large number of His followers. Not because they follow His teachings; not at all; but because they claim to, and don’t, and think the claim alone makes them Holy.
It’s those who say "Lord, Lord," who claim miracles or prophesy or exorcism in God’s name but bomb or enslave their brothers, or expel and persecute refugees, or demand the poor earn that which they need to survive while praising the rich as they steal away more than they could ever spend, the false Christians who seem to make up the overwhelming majority of those who claim to follow Christ, but treat His words like so much dirt unless they can be twisted to serve their purposes. Who might (I have no way of knowing) love the Lord God with all their heart, mind, and soul, but discard the second most important commandment, and fail to love their neighbours (all 7,000,000,000 of them) as they love themselves.
Them I hate. Not so much for being human, but for claiming to be more, rubbing everyone else’s noses in how they’re better, and then not living up to it.
As for the baby-murderer YHWH, He’s not worth even hatred.
Re: Re: Re:4 "Plenty of atheists live morally" is the same as a slave own
No it isn’t. Morality is independent of religion. Many of those things you try to conflate with atheist morality are justified by one or more religions, but that doesn’t make them morally right.
Morality comes, not from any particular religion, but from our common humanity.
Re: Re: Re:4 The party the parties need but won't have
Morality has a basis in well being which comes from empathy with others. That is the generally accepted basis for morality. Someone who does not share that believe for morality may come to different moral conclusions but we consider that to be against prevailing moral beliefs. With well being as a basis you can comstrcut an objective foundation for morality, mo magic fairy in the sky required.
Re: Re: Re:3 The party the parties need but won't have
Either/ Or syndrome. The President, I believe can’t make such a call when Holy principles are called upon to attempt to justify atrocities on this planet when God clearly hates war and some day will end all wars.
Oh dear. Look out Fox, Infowars, Breitfart, Daily Stormer.
Re: Re:
That’s what I was thinking.
‘Faux’ News Suppressing Liberal ‘agendas’ = a ok, freedom of the press!
Unproven Google search Suppressing Conservative agendas = BREAK THEM UP!
Missed in all this is that breaking up Google won’t really make Silicon Valley less liberal or less likely to ‘suppress’ conservatives if these accusations were true. The Silicon Valley tech worker base is simply overwhelmingly Liberal compared to the general population for a variety of reasons. Breaking up Google won’t encourage them to become more conservative, or encourage conservatives to enter the field.
Re: Re: Re:
sucks when repugs do the same stupid shit the demtards do.
As long as it makes them feel good is the point folks. You are no different from them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can’t recall dimtards demanding a breakup of companies for not allowing dimtard views on repug medias.
Can you show an example?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
you are too slow, and there is no reason to attempt to explain something that has already gone over your head.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So…..none.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I already stated it, keep reading, just don’t go holding your breath, you are definitely going to pass-out before you figure anything out.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So….still none. It’s not hard doing a cntl-c and v.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
And no amount of explaining things to an idiot works out.
‘Life Is Hard; It’s Even Harder When You’re Stupid’
If you think hard enough you will figure it out, just be sure to open a window to help clear the resulting smoke.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
So after 3 attempts, still zero.
Re: Re: Re:
An aversion to facts and science is a GOP platform.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The GOP hardly has a monopoly on burning stupidity. I am sure you could give the Democrats and Republicans combined a collective run for their money!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not a monopoly but certainly a significant majority.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well you tried, I guess.
I can see a rationale for breaking up Google... but Facebook?
Google has a lot of things under its umbrella; it uses its dominance in smartphone OS to push its browser; uses its browser dominance to push its search engine; uses its search engine dominance to push its other services. I don’t necessarily agree with arguments to break Google up based on those arguably anticompetitive actions, but I get where they’re coming from.
However, Facebook is just basically one service. Yes, there’s Facebook Marketplace and WhatsApp and Instagram, but all of those are basically the same services (social networking and messaging) that make up the core of Facebook.
Yes, they’re the dominant social networking service. But they don’t seem to be leveraging that dominance anticompetitively; they’re just enjoying it, and raking in advertising and microtransaction money.
I mean, really, how would you break up Facebook, if the order was given? What smaller companies could you break it up into?
The only crime that Facebook seems to have committed, its "anticompetitive" action, is being popular and having an editorial viewpoint that Landry doesn’t like.
If Republicans want a social networking service that isn’t allowed to have its own First Amendment rights, they should create a nationalized one. Since the idea of nationalized anything (other than the military) is anathema to people with an R beside their name, they’re just SOL.
Re: I can see a rationale for breaking up Google... but Facebook?
“it uses its dominance in smartphone OS to push its browser; uses its browser dominance to push its search engine; uses its search engine dominance to push its other services. “
I think you got some things wrong.
It’s search engine(1998) was first and foremost better than the others out there. Then came Chrome(2008) who some argued was “better” than Firefox/IE. Then came the phone(2010).
All the points you make toward FB can be applied to Google.
“However, Facebook is just basically one service. Yes, there’s Facebook Marketplace and WhatsApp and Instagram, but all of those are basically the same services (social networking and messaging) that make up the core of Facebook.”
Marketplace… like Craigslist. Just one service?
“But they don’t seem to be leveraging that dominance anticompetitively; they’re just enjoying it, and raking in advertising and microtransaction money.”
Oh now you just jest.
https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+anticompetitive
Re: I can see a rationale for breaking up Google... but Facebook?
The argument (well, one credible argument) for breaking them up is their dominance in advertising services.
If you want to place an online advertisement, you will very likely to be going to either Google or Facebook.
However there is vigorous competition between the two, which is a good argument that neither has monopoly power.
Re: I can see a rationale for breaking up Google... but Facebook?
People have rights.. corporations. have priviledges.Why would the global corporations be pushing so hard for sovereignty then?
Jane, stop this crazy thing!!!
Ok, but lets start with the real & obviously biased
Ok, but lets start with the real obviously biased Corp, Fox.
Re: Ok, but lets start with the real & obviously biased
Biased?
Fox News is Fair and Balanced™!
How could you ever accuse a Fair and Balanced™ network of bias?!
Obviously, reality, being neither fair nor balanced, is the one with a bias here when contradictions occurred, not the Fair and Balanced™ network at Fox.
Re: Re: Ok, but lets start with the real & obviously biased
The first sign of a fool, thinking that any part of the media is fair or balanced. Just the selection of what is newsworthy is an act of bias and imbalance from the start.
There is no such thing as “unbiased” or “fair and balanced” but those moaning about Fox are likely the most bigoted asses around. The trick is to keep blaming others to deflect guilt.
Re: Re: Re: Ok, but lets start with the real & obviously biased
lol
Re: Re: Re: Ok, but lets start with the real & obviously biased
“The first sign of a fool, thinking that any part of the media is fair or balanced”
So, you agree that viewers of Fox News are fools, since they believe the network with that slogan?
Re: Ok, but lets start with the real & obviously biased
Fox != FaceBook, Fox != Twitter and Fox != Google.
My view; make em all common carriers.
Re: Re: Ok, but lets start with the real & obviously biased
Platforms can not be common carrier, ISPs on the other hand …
Personally my issue with chrome that might be anti trust realated is i used it once. My antivirus installed chrome without telling me and it hijacked everything despite me mever starting it up. I couldnt make it the non primary browser as it made and would refresh registry edits and otherwose was just one step short of malware to remove and even uninstalling did not fix my pc woth certain functions in firefox just being broken. My one experience with chrome. Never using it again.
Re: Re:
Citation Needed
Which Anti-virus? What year? Which functions in firefox remained broken?
This is not well-known chrome behavior, which means I would love to know more about the anti-virus which installed a google chrome branded malware and couldn’t remove it and caused permenant damage to the computer and OS.
Re: Re: Re:
Avg in an update installed chrome without user consent. There was a bunch of outrage over this, a quick google will find that. Google chrome has documented issues in w7 with not letting go of the default browser once it takes it as well, overriding others until completely removed.
Might be fixed now, but i still refuse to use chrome now.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This no longer happens. AVG was bought by Avast and the installer asks if you want to install an AVG locked down version of Chromium instead of Chrome.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’m sure it doesn’t but it still affected my trust in the company. And that’s kinda important because the documented issue is the automatic update installed chrome without user consent. Whether I can install ‘chromium’ or ‘chrome’ is kind of irrelevant if it installed it without asking me to begin with.
Additionally it doesn’t affect how chrome fucked with my drive junctions and broke how my computer pathed when clicking image links and required me to go into the registry and manually repair things. Something no other browser has done to me.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That seems to me as if it should lead you to distrust the antivirus company in question, not Chrome. It’s not like it’s Chrome’s fault – or Google’s, unless they had some sort of arrangement with the other company involved – that that antivirus company decided to install Chrome on an automatic update without prompting for confirmation; Chrome doesn’t have any say in that decision.
I can’t speak to the other breakage you’re talking about, except to say that I’ve never heard of it happening to anyone else. I handle software deployment in my workplace, including deployment of Chrome, and we’ve never had any of those problems so far as I’m aware.
(It’s probably worth noting that we also don’t use explicit junctions, but I suspect that very few people do, beyond whatever may be put in place by the installers of various programs; Windows’ “junctions” aren’t a well-known or terribly accessible feature, and if you make use of them on a conscious and intentional level, you are almost certainly a significant outlier.)
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“And that’s kinda important because the documented issue is the automatic update installed chrome without user consent”
….so why are you blaming Google for something that was clearly a mistake by AVG?
“Whether I can install ‘chromium’ or ‘chrome’ is kind of irrelevant if it installed it without asking me to begin with.”
Not really, as it would determine whether or not Google has any control over the problems you had, or if they were down to modifications made by AVG or someone else beyond their control. There may have been modifications either way, but if they weren’t paying Google for a licence for the commercial version, there’s absolutely nothing they could have done to stop you having problems.
I’m sure you had a bad time, but do try to make sure you’re blaming the right people. This is why section 230 is so important, people sometimes have a tendency to blame the most convenient target, not the people responsible for the problem.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Chromium is the open source platform Chrome is based on, so it wasn’t Chrome and Google had nothing to do with it. Also, because of complaints the software company in question has changed their installation process to ask if the user wants CHROMIUM installed and used as a secure browser.
Re: Re: Re:
Also what it fuckef up on my pc isni used drive junctions to manage my space and folders which is no lomger needed in w10. However googles implementation totally fucked with my junctioning and registry edits which actually did break my computer. And requird a shit ton of effort to fix. Is it common for people to run into this? No but i still got fucked and thats all that matters to me.
Re: Re:
I agree with James Burkhardt. This is definitely normal behavior. I’d need more data.
Re: Re:
Did your anti-virus install CHROME or CHROMIUM?
Can we break up political parties, oil companies, the Koch brothres, and Greenpeace for their political agendas?
Re: Re:
nope, people parties are their literal religion. If you attack that they get might defensive. They don’t care about what is right or wrong, just about what serves their agenda.
No matter where you go, each side approves of corruption when the corruption gives them what they want. Activist judges? Okay if we get what we want. Presidents failing to enforce the law or enforce laws that technically do not exist? Okay, as long as it serves our politics.
And here… Freedom of speech, assembly, and association? Okay… as long as your say the speech we approve of, assemble when, where, and how we say you can, and associate with those we agree with… otherwise…
Re: Re: Re:
I sometimes wish I had the use of GOD’S THUMB just for one day!
What am I missing here?
“Landry says the internet giants are suppressing conservative agendas, stifling competition, and infringing on antitrust laws.
“This can’t be fixed legislatively,” Landry told The Advocate Tuesday. “We need to go to court with an antitrust suit.”
He SAYS they’re suppressing yada yada yada, then says the THREE complaints can’t be fixed legislatively, then says they need to go to court with an Anti-Trust Action.
“Suppressing conservative yada yada” are just buzz words. The latter two claims are basically the same thing – stifling competition IS an anti-trust action.
Where is anything infringing on the First Amendment if anti-competitive and anti-trust laws are invoked and a Suit is filed on *those* grounds in Court?
Re: What am I missing here?
It is not a matter of suppressing or censoring conservative agendas. The problem is that these sites persist in “promoting” liberal and Progressive agendas.
Suppose the top three hyperlinks in every Google search result were the conservative leaders: you would still find the conservatives up in arms because the remaining links present liberal/progressive positions.
Their concern is not fair presentation at all, but rather the utter silencing of “unwanted” viewpoints.
But they will tell you it is not really censorship. No, not at all.
Re: Re: What am I missing here?
“The problem is that these sites persist in “promoting” liberal and Progressive agendas.”
I looked for supporting evidence in the remainder of your post but found none.
Re: Re: Re: What am I missing here?
Missing the most important point that is they are all in cahoots and love to put on a big show.
Re: Re: What am I missing here?
Wait So called “conservatives” are looking for “safe spaces” on the internet in the arms of for-profit corporations? There’s some hilarious irony.
So basically as soon as left leaning people start making companies suddenly the right thinks capitalism doesn’t work and the govn’t should be controlling how big companies operate because they aren’t being “fair” enough to everyone.
This is modern conservative thinking?
Am I the only one who finds all the whining about being treated unfair by the big internet companies and how we need to “do something about it” extremely… left?
Re: Re:
Well, of course companies asked to censor hate speech are meddling with conservative platforms because the main tool for boosting the status quo is to vilify anyone and anything not yet long-standing.
Google is *NOT* a Monopoly..
I don’t know how many times I’ve said, others have said it, anyone who claims Google is a Monopoly is 3 brain-cells shy of a 4 pack.
Google does *NOT* control how many people use their search engine.
Google does *NOT* control how many people and/or companies use their advertising.
Google does *NOT* control how much revenue they generate through the search engine and web-advertising businesses.
Why do the idiots in the governments keep thinking they control that, when we know they don’t?
We, the people (real human-beings, not corporations) control how many times Google’s search engine is used, and by that control, we control which web advertising services are used the most.
Everyone across the globe that makes their own personal choice as to which search engine(s) to use makes the decision(s) for the companies that wish to present web advertisements to the people using those search engines and the websites linked from the search results.
If a majority of the population were to use Bing for example, all of those government morons would be carrying torches and pitch-forks towards Microsoft HQ instead of Google.
However, due to the fact that we, the populace, have made our preferences known, and due to the numbers that show those preferences, Google has the highest search engine usage of any search engine globally, and due to that usage, gets the lion’s share of revenue for web advertising.
That isn’t due to Google scaring or forcing people or companies into using their services, it is due to their proficiency and excellence of service that we make that selection, thereby telling companies where to spend their advertising dollars.
It’s that simple.
If the collective “we” don’t want Google to be the top search engine or web advertising giant, then the collective “we” have to stop using their services.
Until the collective “we” change our minds, Google gets the benefits of our daily choices.
There is no Google monopoly. Never has been, never will be.
Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!
So many of these "accounts" have wacky and clumsy verbiage very like Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet".
And they have Techdirt’s exact views, especially to defend Google.
And there are now NINE known "accounts" here which have gaps of over six years.
So I conclude most of the comments now on Techdirt are astro-turfing.
In any case, that Google isn’t big enough to worry about is HOOTABLE.
On that point, Kim Dotcom has MY views:
Twitter, Facebook, Google, you betray your users by helping the Deep State to spy on all, you politicize your platforms to manipulate public opinion, you shadowban, censor and attack free speech. Your tech is easy to replace and your users will leave you. Your days are numbered. – Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 7, 2018
Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!
Hitchen’s Razor – “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
Re: Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!
Google once claimed to be the first search engine.. that was laughable then and still laughable.. “hehe haha ho! That’s a good one.”
Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!
I too studied under noted US constitutional law professor and justice Kim Dotcom.
Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!
Until the users stop using Google’s services, they’ll never go away.
Sorry Kim.com, but you’re predictions are based on faulty reasoning.
If every user of the internet were a computer science, security and encryption geek, then yeah, things would be different.
But the numbers of people who’s knowledge of any of those is limited to relative zero-point makes up 99.999% of the internet’s users.
Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!
I can state unconditionally that I have never been paid by Google for anything.
I just have a zero tolerence policy for stupidity.
Everytime someone throws out the words Google and Monopoly in the same sentence, raises my ire, because it’s obvious the person making the statement is a blithering idiot.
Re: Re: Re: Google is *NOT* a Monopoly.. -- HA, HA, HA! What a shill!
You answer your own posts..
Recently, conservatives have argued that discriminating against lifestyles you don’t agree with is OK if you’re selling cakes, and they won.
The way forward for Internet companies is clear.
If it wants to avoid prosecution for bias (real or perceived), Google needs to start delivering search results in cake form.
Re: Re:
Tell me, how would you feel if it were the other way around? If it were a gay business refusing to serve Christians? Would you still think it wrong? Or is your hatred of the cross so strong you think any morally reprehensible action is okay against them? Can you point me to the exact law and statute which specifically says a business must serve everyone? Do you think it is right for an extreme minority of the population (less than 2%) to dictate to all of society what they can and can’t do? If you don’t like it when megarich politicians do it, then it should be no better when the LGBT community does it. Bullying businesses into acting against their own beliefs is wrong. You wouldn’t want it done to a gay business, so extend the same courtesy to those that aren’t.
Re: Re: Re:
Bigots are so cute.
Re: Re: Re:
Freedom of Speech – ie – you do not have a right not to be offended.
Freedom of Religion – ie – government cannot tell you what your religion is, or how to practice it
Yeah, if a gay person decided not to sell cakes to Christians, I’d be okay with that. It would kill their business pretty damned quick, but that’s okay if that’s what they want to do with their business.
I’m not a hater, but most, if not all LGBT members and their supporters seem to be, because they hate it when ANYONE doesn’t let them do what they want.
I don’t hate, but I don’t want it paraded around in my face either.
What people do inside their homes is up to them.
If they decide to step into my personal space to parade it, then I have a problem with it.
If I run a business, I damned well can and will decide who I serve and who I don’t.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well said.
Not a popular stance anymore. More’s the shame.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Because love wins, and don’t you dare forget it!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s not popular because it’s illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry you’re both a bigot and don’t understand the law.
Re: Re: Re: 'There's a separate shop for your kind, and it might be equal.'
No in fact, you cannot just decide who you will and will not serve in your public business outside of certain limits, and for a perfect(and historical) example of why that is the case simply swap out ‘gay’ for ‘black’.
‘We sell cakes, but we don’t sell cakes to your kind. I’d say good luck finding anyone else to sell them to you, because our town doesn’t tolerate you lot, but even that is more than I care to grant you.’
Still up for letting a business choose who they do business with, keeping in mind what that would have meant historically and even today?
Re: Re: Re:2 'There's a separate shop for your kind, and it might be equal.'
What happens when the creation of the cakes and/or the act of serving someone the cake, infringes on the sellers/servers religious beliefs? Should the seller/server have to set aside their own beliefs to provide goods or services? Not serving someone because of the color of their skin, verses not serving someone because the act of serving them violates the server/sellers right to practice their religion seems like two completely different things to me.
So my question is; Should anti discrimination laws supersede religions beliefs?
Re: Re: Re:3 'There's a separate shop for your kind, and it might be equal.'
“What happens when the creation of the cakes and/or the act of serving someone the cake, infringes on the sellers/servers religious beliefs?”
If you can violate your religion by baking a cake, you either need to find another religion or another business. It’s nobody’s fault but your own if you choose a business to be in that can potentially violate your religion. Whether it’s a Christian who decides to work in a pharmacy but has objections to some of the medication they dispense or a Muslim who decides he can’t handle some of the meat in the store he works in, the onus is on you for making a bad career choice, not on the rest of the world to bend to accommodate your bad choice.
If you’re open to the public, you cannot pick and choose which members of the public you choose to serve just because you don’t like “their kind”. There’s plenty of historical evidence as to why this is a bad idea if you believe in a truly free and equal society.
“Not serving someone because of the color of their skin, verses not serving someone because the act of serving them violates the server/sellers right to practice their religion seems like two completely different things to me.”
What if their religion states that black people are inferior, as Mormonism used to? What if your common garden variety racist just makes up a religion to get around the fact they can’t discriminate?
They are exactly the same thing. Just because your hatred of others comes from a religious source rather than natural bigotry, that doesn’t really make a distinction worth considering. The right of others to remain unmolested by your actions is more important than the excuse you choose to discriminate.
“Should anti discrimination laws supersede religions beliefs”
Yes. let me put it this way – if my religion demands human sacrifice, or pedophilia, or slavery, that doesn’t give you a magic pass on how you treat others. The rights of others not to be murdered, reaped or enslaved trumps your demand to practice your religion.
Same here – the right of a person to be treated equally regardless of their sexuality trumps your religious belief that they should be treated as inferior.
Re: Re: Re:4 violate your religion by baking a cake
Nothing is too far fetched for Christians …
Re: Re: Re:5 violate your religion by baking a cake
Meh, I wouldn’t even single out Christians. There’s weird and wonderful things in every religion. Plus, the story that article seems to be more the result of an overzealous automated filter and a lack of common sense rather than any religious intervention on the part of the store.
Generally speaking, though, my opinion is that religious people can believe whatever wacky stuff they want, up to the point where they’re trying to use it as an excuse to remove the rights of others. Then, we have a problem, no matter which sect they chose to believe in.
Re: Re: Re:4 'There's a separate shop for your kind, and it might be equal.'
“If you’re open to the public, you cannot pick and choose which members of the public you choose to serve just because you don’t like “their kind”. There’s plenty of historical evidence as to why this is a bad idea if you believe in a truly free and equal society.”
You are flat out wrong. U.S. Federal law does not prevent discrimination due to sexual preference. Homosexuals are not considered a protected class in the eyes of the Fed’s. There may be some state laws that do (New York, California, a few more I believe) but not all. Some business owner have gone so far as to put up signs. Stupid I agree, but they did so legally.
“Same here – the right of a person to be treated equally regardless of their sexuality trumps your religious belief that they should be treated as inferior.”
Again, the law disagrees with you. Even the stats that do have laws protecting gays, also have carved out exemptions for religious organizations.
Re: Re: Re:5 'There's a separate shop for your kind, and it might be equal.'
You are flat out wrong. U.S. Federal law does not prevent discrimination due to sexual preference. Homosexuals are not considered a protected class in the eyes of the Fed’s. There may be some state laws that do (New York, California, a few more I believe) but not all. Some business owner have gone so far as to put up signs. Stupid I agree, but they did so legally.
Unfortunately true, my point was not so much ‘You can’t do this in all cases’, so much as ‘Here’s a perfect example of why you shouldn’t be allowed to do that, as demonstrated by current, more limited laws applied to other groups in the same situation, and the history behind why discrimination like that was prohibited.’
Again, the law disagrees with you. Even the stats that do have laws protecting gays, also have carved out exemptions for religious organizations.
Which is complete and total garbage. ‘You can be a bigot and discriminate against gays so long as you hide behind your religion of choice when you do it, because despite making clear that neither race nor gender are acceptable grounds for discrimination we haven’t gotten around to making it explicit that discrimination based upon sexual orientation isn’t acceptable either.’
Re: Re: Re:
If a gay business owner refused to serve a Christian because that person was being an asshole, that is not a problem. If that business owner refused to serve a Christian because that person was a Christian, that is illegal. Non-discrimination protections apply just as much to the majority as they do to the minority.
Public accomodation laws do not say a business “must serve everyone”, but the public-facing business must at least be open to the general public. If a business puts up a sign that says “no Blacks”, that business is going to be in a lot of trouble. (Although in places without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinances, business owners can put up signs that say “no gays” and get away with it.)
In the case of serving gay people in public-facing businesses? Yes. Yes, I do. Gay people should not have to face discrimination based only on who they are.
Assume you are a government attorney who investigates and prosecutes racial discrimination claims. The next case in front of you is about a Black person who went into a public-facing business and asked for something that any White person could buy without issue, but the White owner of that business refused to sell that thing to that Black person because the owner believes Black people are subhuman filth. Which one would you say your filing of a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the customer is: bullying that business owner to act against their beliefs or reminding that business owner of the laws they promised to follow when they opened that business?
Re: Re:
non sequitur…
They ruled that the Bakery was being unfairly treated by the law itself, not that the bakery is allowed to refuse service to gays. So the point is that the pro-gay crowed was being even MORE bigoted, vindictive, and illegal than the bakery!
You can’t even lie effectively get a new game plan.
Re: Re:
Ggl just send the search results in cake.They will be much easier to swallow.. and maybe we’ll all get fat.
Nope, no bias in "search" from billionaires in pastel shirts:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/
Re: Nope, no bias in "search" from billionaires in pastel shirts:
This drivel was already debunked last time you spammed it.
Re: Nope, no bias in "search" from billionaires in pastel shirts:
interesting – I search “google reaction to trump” and that exact link is second in search results.
In google search.
Same on a firefox browser on a different computer that has never visited that page.
First link is the guardian, which is an article talking about the breitbart page.
…Search bias is where?
okay people, once more with gusto...
There is NOTHING from stopping you from using
Re: Wait a minute...
Republicans use the Internet? I just assumed they yelled about it being the worst thing ever.
How is it...
Its strange that standing in the middle…
Only showing what everyone and everything is doing..
Can get you in trouble.
The EU wants you to pay a tax on LINKING, to news..
And where do we find/locate see what others are doing?? the News channels..
HOW is it, that they are only naming the FEW..and NOT the WHOLE??
its called POPULARITY..quality, selection, WORK INVOLVED IN CREATING WHAT WORKS..
Can the others DO THE SAME THING…YEP..
DIDNT BING try using googles OWN engine and service…and GOT CAUGHT??
How many corps, rather COLLECT the bills, then to put the money into CREATING something, WHOLe and from scratch, and the TIME to improve what they have?? and PAY the creators/engineers, and so forth??
BUILD something, NEW..build it better, or the same..But keep on Improving it..
THAT is competition..
HOW did Ford get started??
Cheap, easy, Fast…and Keep building..Cheap and easy.
CARS were not new, they were hand made, and insted of making 1-10 per year, they made Millions…They made them Cheap..
Re: How is it...
How many corps understand the BASICS of business creation…
NOT being a Bill collector, ONLY..
The Breakup of MA BELL..only created a Major business of HIDE THE PEA.. Hide Who owns whom and break it all up to the point that a game of 52 pickup seems like a child’s game..
You have 4-5 major players and Lots of smaller companies, that you throw up and spread around…Pick them all back up and Throw them around again..
then lets add to the mix…
Lets add, Cable/sat TV..Internet, Cellphones(how many Small companies OWNED by the bigger corps??) AT&T has over 16.. how many internet sites created by those Corps are trying to SELL YOU TV OFF THE NET?? after you QUIT CABLE..
Try,,,REALLy try to collect the list of all these little pieces and Keep them in 1 hand, and watch the cards shuffle..
This monster ggl will no doubt take down everyone and everything it (tHEY) can before it is sunk. Remember you read it here at techdirt.
Re: Re:
Sir I believe you are having a stroke. Seek medical attention immediately.
The AG has a point
Clearly the AG is a fashionista. As we all know, when you cut on the bias the dress fits so much better.
Another Example of Shameful LIberals
My review of the articles here and the comments here would seem to say that this site leans solidly liberal.
I also see there is a lot of talk about the constitution, the first amendment, and the law.
“But a general rule of thumb: if you have to spit on the First Amendment to get your wish, you’re doing it wrong.” (From the article)
What about if you spit on something even more fundamental in the constitution, for example, the presumption of innocence. That is being done right now, today, to a prospective Supreme Court Judge.
Would the same liberals who rely on the constitution to defend their views simultaneously ignore than constitution to defend their views?
My question is, with all the talk of morality and constitutional issues, are any of the liberals here moral enough to denounce what is happening to Judge Kavanaugh? Is there anyone here that will denounce how undocumented unverified accusations are being used to destroy a public figure with an outstanding record?
Anyone?
I expect not. Liberals advance any ridiculous argument to promote liberal views and abandon morality, decency and justice for anyone who opposes them.
Shameful.
Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Bud, appointment of supreme court justices is a political process like impeachment. There is no right to be a judge of the highest court of the land. They can deny him because they don’t like a tie he wore in 1983. Character and unproven crimes are not outside the domain so stow your persecution complex.
Re: Re: Appointment of supreme court justices is a political process
Shouldn’t political appointments have term limits, or at least be subject to some kind of reselection process? Why should a political appointment be a lifetime job?
Re: Re: Re: Appointment of supreme court justices is a political process
Little late to the party here!
Consider how many politicians do "favors" for companies in return for cushy lobbying positions once their term ends, and then imagine the Supreme Court being bribed in the same way. Lifetime appointments have cons, but they do also have pros.
Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Speaking as someone who, based on (things I’ve read about) Kavanaugh’s writings and rulings and so forth to date, believes that he would likely make rulings on some issues – prominently, net neutrality – which I would find abhorrent:
Undocumented, unverified accusations should not be enough to destroy a public figure, or anyone else.
However, I fail to see how being denied elevation to the Supreme Court constitutes destruction. As far as recall having seen, no one is even proposing that Kavanaugh be removed from his current position as a federal judge – just that he not be elevated to the highest court in the land.
Also, the solution to undocumented, unverified accusations is to investigate those accusations, and thereby build up documentation one way or another, until you have enough to determine that A: the accusations are accurate, B: they are not, or C: it is no longer possible to determine whether or not they are accurate.
That would involve delaying Kavanaugh’s confirmation, rather than trying to rush it through on a partisan basis; presumption of innocence does not mean refusing to investigate allegations of guilt.
Trying to insist on elevating him without knowing all the facts seems, to me, like a significantly worse abandonment of "decency and justice" – and, for that matter, of the Senate’s responsibilities under the Constitution – than anything being done against him.
Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
It’s a Democratic “con job”, none of it is true, it is sensationalism and public character assasination with no legitimate basis whatsoever.
It will be the end of the Democratic Party.
Re: Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“It’s a Democratic “con job”, none of it is true”
Can you share the evidence you based this assertion on with the rest of us, or is that just your own wishful thinking?
Re: Re: Re:2 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Everyone already has compelling evidence that this is a total “con job”:
Just listen to the accuser:
“Someone jumped on me at a party and touched me through my clothes 35 years ago for a few seconds when I was 15 at an unknown place at an unknown time on an unknown day in an unknown year, no one saw it, I told no one and said nothing for three decades, but NOW I want JUSTICE in the form of publicly labeling this fellow a SEX CRIMINAL”, making him UNFIT to hold a trusted position because of HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT.”
Ridiculous absurdity on display or the whole world to see. It will not stand.
Re: Re: Re:3 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
You idiot, you are missing the point altogether! Maybe he touched her, maybe he didn’t, it DOESN’T MATTER!
I was touched once by a man, my friend was touched, WE WERE ALL TOUCHED, and WE DIDN’T LIKE IT! Well, sometimes we liked it, but sometimes we didn’t, and WE ARE ANGRY ABOUT IT.
So WHO CARES If he actually did ANYTHING? IT DOESN’T MATTER!! WE ARE ANGRY WOMEN! ALL OF US!
MEN SHOULD SHUT UP AND STEP UP! YOU ARE ALL GUILTY!!
Re: Re: Re:3 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
So, you’re saying that it’s a con job because you lack the empathy and intelligence to understand what’s being said and why it’s important in the larger picture? Got it.
“I told no one and said nothing for three decades”
…and if you listened to the reactions of a lot of people in this and many other similar cases, you’d understand why.
Re: Re: Re:4 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Well, one thing is for certain: No one will ever forget this spectacle, least of all SCOTUS. We are witnessing the abandonment of the constitution as we know it by the Democrats, there is no other possible interpretation.
Imagine for a moment if Judge Kavanaugh IS confirmed, how it will shape his opinions, and those of everyone around him, for the rest of his life. He’s human, after all, as are the rest of us. This thread touched on morality. One can be moral and still visit ruin upon those who would abandon the both morality and the constitution.
No one will forget this spectacle and con-job. Not for 35 years, not for 35 seconds, it will stay top of mind and familiar to everyone. It will be burned into the memory of every American for decades to come.
Re: Re: Re:5 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“there is no other possible interpretation”
You tell yourself that.
“Imagine for a moment if Judge Kavanaugh IS confirmed, how it will shape his opinions, and those of everyone around him, for the rest of his life”
If he’s going to let personal beefs fuel his decisions on the bench, perhaps it is better that he’s not confirmed.
Although, it’s interesting that you are fixated on this, and not on the impact that having a guy who was never punished for attempted rapes preside over cases that could have important impacts on the lives of women on the bench.
“It will be burned into the memory of every American for decades to come.”
As will numerous other cases, like Cosby’s – about which I recall people like you whining that it was a “con job” when the first of his victims started to come forward. How did that work out, again?
Re: Re: Re:6 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Comparing Cosby to Kavanaugh marks you.
Re: Re: Re:7 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
You might recall that during the whole hearing, Kavanaugh had a copy of the constitution between his fingers.
That’s his “personal beef”, and he will indeed let it influence him.
The tragedy is how little it influences the rest of you here.
Re: Re: Re:8 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“You might recall that during the whole hearing, Kavanaugh had a copy of the constitution between his fingers.”
I also recall how I don’t fetishise that document, so don’t believe that such displays absolve a person of their own actions. Is that all it takes for you?
“That’s his “personal beef”, and he will indeed let it influence him.”
Pandering to morons with transparently fake displays of patriotism has certainly influenced many in power, sadly.
Re: Re: Re:7 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Cosby – guy who was accused of raping women
Kavanaugh – guy who was accused of sexually molesting women, which at least one person described as attempted rape
The comparison is not exact, but hardly subtle. As with Cosby, we’ll see what the outcome is as far as his guilt, but it’s certainly correct not to be installing him in further positions of power until we have determined the truth.
Re: Re: Re:8 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
He will be confirmed.
Then watch what happens.
Americans have had enough.
There is no amount of biased Google searches or angry Twitter mobs (or disgusting Techdirt commentary) that will keep the same Republicans that voted for Trump from voting again for a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
This will all backfire on the Demoncrats in spectacular fashion.
Re: Re: Re:9 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“He will be confirmed.”
We shall see.
“Americans have had enough.”
“Americans” and “Republicans” are two distinctly different groups especially among the educated.
“the same Republicans that voted for Trump”
…being a distinct minority among voters who took part in the last election.
“This will all backfire on the Demoncrats in spectacular fashion.”
Ah, right wingers – when you can’t debate the facts, turn to lies and playground name calling before you run away..
Re: Re: Re:10 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
The facts include that the Democrats have made a circus out of the Senate proceedings, and are continuing to do so.
The facts include President Trump winning for the American people, economically and internationally.
The circus will not sell. It gives people something to talk about, but they will not vote for circus clowns for politicians, except in a few (especially entertaining) cases.
Trump will have a second 2 years with more achievement than the first two.
Then four more years after that.
Re: Re: Re:11 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“The facts include that the Democrats have made a circus out of the Senate proceedings, and are continuing to do so.”
Nowhere near the circus the Republicans have made of every branch they control, but you’ll give them a free pass there won’t you?
“The facts include President Trump winning for the American people, economically and internationally.”
Lol
“It gives people something to talk about, but they will not vote for circus clowns for politicians”
That’s why Trump lost the popular vote. Alas, that wasn’t good enough to keep him out…
Re: Re: Re:12 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
I read that Fox News edited out the laughter Trump received at the UN – LOL.
Re: Re: Re:9 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Since we are pulling predictions out of our asses this morning….
Both houses are in play this Nov and the GOP is shitting their pants, well they only have themselves to blame.
If Kav is confirmed he may one of few judges to be impeached from that position.
Mueller will have Trumps head along with many co-conspirators, trump may step down in order to avoid prison.
WhattYaThink?
Re: Re: Re:10 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
I think you have a fitting name for yourself.
Re: Re: Re:11 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
The name reflects upon the post replied to – making predictions is so much fun.
Re: Re: Re:5 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
That’s the part of liberal thinking I just never understood. People remember. They remembered Hillary and how crooked she was. They will remember the Russia hoax and how crooked the FBI and the DOJ were. They will remember the “con-job” on Kavanaugh.
That’s what I never understood. The left does not seem to care about the public displays of immorality and perversion of Justice they are perpetrating. Maybe they developed their devious techniques before the Internet, YouTube and storage of every event forever. I dunno. I never understood it.
But I always heard that if you’re going to try to assasinate somone’s character, you better succeed quickly. Because if they don’t die, there will be hell to pay.
Kavanaugh will be confirmed. Then the future will come.
Re: Re: Re:6 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
They remember things they saw on Fox, read on Breitbart, InfoWars and other right wing radical websites who specialize in creating bullshit as though it were actual news items. Their crapola is worse than seen at the grocery store checkout.
Re: Re: Re:6
Republicans stalled the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland for a year because Barack Obama was the one who made the nomination. How was that not a public display of “immorality and perversion of justice” on a level that pisses you off as much as those from “the left”?
Re: Re: Re:3 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Also, let’s see…
You: “Someone jumped on me at a party and touched me through my clothes 35 years ago for a few seconds”
Her: “She said Kavanaugh held her down, put his hand over her mouth to silence her, and tried to remove her clothes.”
The second accuser: “Deborah Ramirez, a Yale University classmate of Kavanaugh’s, said that he exposed himself to her and shoved his penis in her face at a dorm room party in their freshman year at the Ivy League school”
Hmmm… it’s almost as if you’re lying about what she said in order to give him a free pass…
I’d say there’s is a con job going on – and you either fell for it or are perpetrating it yourself.
Re: Re: Re:4 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
You forgot to say I was carrying water for Putin, you Democratic moron.
Re: Re: Re:5 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Why would I say that? Not every desperate liar is paid to be one, sadly.
Re: Re: Re:5 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
You’re the first person to suggest that Putin has anything to do with all of these suddenly out of nowhere anonymous comments whose content are dead ringers for Russian Disinformation comments. Hrm….
Thankfully for the US, we’re smartening up to all this nonsense.
Re: Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
90%+ of sexual assault accusations are true.
The only “con job” was that absurd staged interview Kavanaugh gave the other night where he showed just how much he was coached and lied thru his teeth. Oh, and he used his “faithful” wife as a prop.
Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Time to wheel this ol’ chestnut out again: http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-has-lock-on-morality-left-liberals.html
“Morality” isn’t absolute any more, it’s a matter of opinion these days — not that I’m happy with it but there you are.
AC 26 Sep 2018 @ 12:06am, if you’re going to whine about a man who perjured himself five times (is that what a good man is according to your philosophy? Yikes!), have the decency to mention Merrick Garland in the same sentence. He didn’t even get to first base purely due to partisanship.
All this Libs V Cons chatter fails to take into consideration the rightward jolt of the Overton Window to the point where “Conservative” means “from amoral bug-eyed right-winger to cartoon villain.” It used to mean “sane and sober governance.” It’s time to recalibrate our perceptions of what right-wing and left-wing actually mean since if you actually read Jacobin Magazine (an avowedly left wing media outlet) you might possibly pop a blood vessel.
This site, for the record, features a multiplicity of mostly libertarian-leaning views.
Finally, Google doesn’t need to be broken up because it’s big or because it’s popular. The other search engines need to raise their game till they’re more popular. I remember when Lycos was a thing. Who uses that now?
Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“”Morality” isn’t absolute any more, it’s a matter of opinion these days”
It always has been, it’s not really a new phenomena. There were times where things we find abhorrently immoral today would have been considered virtues, and those who opposed them considered vile.
“Finally, Google doesn’t need to be broken up because it’s big or because it’s popular. The other search engines need to raise their game till they’re more popular.”
But… that sounds like hard work, especially when you’re trying explicitly to promote a political agenda rather than creating a useful service! Better to whine and have people force others to push the agenda for you.
Re: Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
It probably has not occurred to you lefties that not everyone has abandoned their morals.
Re: Re: Re:2 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
You lefties
I’m conservative
not everyone has abandoned their morals.
THEIR morals.
Where locking kids up in cages and keeping them away from their parents for a misdemeanour is moral.
Where making a six year old girl responsible for keeping away from the other older kid who molests her is moral.
Where making tiny kids defend themselves in court over immigration violations is moral.
Where lying FIVE TIMES to Congress is moral.
Where putting a tollbooth on access to healthcare is moral on the grounds that you don’t have cancer so why should you pay for treatment of someone else’s?
"THEIR" morality sucks donkeys!!
Re: Re: Re:3 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
You are a liar. You are not a conservative. You are a publicly self-admitted member and proponent of the Pirate Party.
Re: Re: Re:4 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
I’m curious, what do you consider to be a conservative and does your definition align its self with any other people’s thoughts on same or are your definitions really out there in the vast expanse of outer space?
Re: Re: Re:4 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
One explanation coming up: http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2014/07/its-hard-to-be-moderate-conservative.html
Re: Re: Re:2 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
I didn’t abandon morals at all.
Re: Re: Re:2 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“It probably has not occurred to you lefties that not everyone has abandoned their morals.”
No, some people certainly do still believe that sexually assaulting women is immoral, and that people who do such things should not be in power . The real question is why people like you think this should be a partisan issue.
Re: Re: Re:3 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
“people who do such things should not be in power”
I would like to add … should not be in power of any kind much less that of the supreme court which will be asked to rule on things related to sexual assaults.
Re: Re: Re:4 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
I also deliberately said “in power” so as to apply to all sides and attempt to avoid the inevitable cries of “but Clinton lied about consensual sexual activities, so unrepentant rapists are fine!”.
If your personal conduct includes the attempt at abusing power you have over one particular demographic, you really shouldn’t be in a position to abuse it on a national level.
Re: Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Yes, I know, PaulT, but at least there was an idea of absolute morality, however our ancestors managed to rationalise the awful things they did.
But… that sounds like hard work, especially when you’re trying explicitly to promote a political agenda rather than creating a useful service! Better to whine and have people force others to push the agenda for you.
Careful, PaulT, that kind of morality is probably copyrighted, trademarked, and patented up the wazoo.
Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Conservative hasn’t meant “sane and sober governance” in 40+ years.
Re: Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
[Sad but true]
Re: Re: Re:2 Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Hey, Wendy; at some point I would love to sit down and just have a sober, philosophical talk with you. I am, as you no doubt guessed from my posts, pretty darn liberal :p but I would love to have my views examined and challenged by someone actually willing to engage with thoughtful conservative viewpoints rather than Faux News hysteria.
Re: Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
And now it means “please elect me to fix the government that doesn’t work because I refuse to help fix it”. The entire governing strategy of the GOP is that the government would work if the GOP were in control of it, so when the GOP gets control of it, they make sure to gut as much of it as possible. They leave just enough around so that the government works only as much as it needs to until the next election—at which point Republicans say they can fix all the problems Washington if they could just get reëlected.
Democrats are not much better in their governing strategy (which amounts to “we’ll try to compromise with the Leopards Eating Faces Party so that they’ll only eat a few faces and see how that wor—OH GOD THEY ATE ALL OUR FACES”). But they typically do not get into government so they can grind everything to a halt and make a career out of pretending to fix the problems they made.
Re: Another Example of Shameful LIberals
Rights, morals, religions???
Whose rights??
Whose Morals?>>
The Christian religion has over 40 different views and sects.. Which would you rather??
I wonder if you even understand that you are PArt of a Jewish sect??
That all your Bible stories are from the jewish faith..you have Very little of your OWN christain Stories or history..
Do you Even know when the NEW testament was input to the bible and When the common MAN got to read Any of it??
The Irony Of Course Being...
Google already broke themselves up. You’d have to be a complete moron to forget that. They saw what the haters were planning well in advance and prepared because Google is smarter than their critics.
Clearly
Re: The Irony Of Course Being...
That is a very low bar when the crtics fail to surpass slime mold in intellectual capacity.
Oh yeah. The SOCIAL MEDIA companies are harming competition...
…and NOT the telcos and cablecos that keep buying up competitors and media outlets in their bids to shut down ACTUAL competition. These morons can’t be taken seriously.