Is the internet bad for democracy?

[Thomas]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-are-these-civility-arguments-really-about/?ex_cid=538twitter

The chat is a bit tl;dr but are the heated arguments between political sides damaging the foundations of democracy?

[Adam]

I think democracy is certainly bad for the internet

[Adam]

That was an interesting chat. Thanks for sharing. 

[Adam]

I'm skeptical that Trump is as unpopular as we're led to believe. There's such cultural pressure to oppose him by the left that I can see a big number of centrist/apolitical folks going along with that and yet still casting a vote for him next go around. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

No.

...at least not amongst the generations raised online. 

[Tank]

7 hours ago, Adam said:

I'm skeptical that Trump is as unpopular as we're led to believe. There's such cultural pressure to oppose him by the left that I can see a big number of centrist/apolitical folks going along with that and yet still casting a vote for him next go around. 

i think it comes down to who the media focuses on. they seek out the louder voices and present them as representative of a much larger group.

[failos]

The United States was never intended to be framed as a democracy, but rather a republic in the same vein as the Roman Republic (Federalist Papers). In fact, our Founding Fathers abhorred democracy and equated it with mob rule not unlike Athens, and other early greek city-states.

The Death of Socrates gives a very real insight into the follies of the pure democracy.

Having said that,  I believe that the Internet is the purest form of democracy to ever exist; and if anything, it reveals the very real flaws of democracy and the consequence of mob rule.

[Taylor]

31 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/corner/heng-gets-facebook-blocked/amp/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/

[Rico]

31 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

 

Congress needs to act and consider these social media giants to be part of the "public square," making it illegal to censor political speech.

 

So you want the government to control our social media?  lol

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Trump is the one who has called the press the enemy of the people, because they won't kiss his ass and only report what he wants reported. I truly believe that he envies Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin in that respect 

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/corner/heng-gets-facebook-blocked/amp/

Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. have way too much power in censorship of political speech.

Here's a woman running for Congress whose ad was censored for no good reason. 

Not only do liberals hate the second amendment, they now hate the first amendment as well.

What Facebook is doing is absolutely not in line with the spirit of American free speech. Congress needs to act and consider these social media giants to be part of the "public square," making it illegal to censor political speech.

Alex Jones just got banned from YouTube. He's fringe, you may not agree with him, but he should not be censored.

We do not, and should not, live under an authoritarian state, which is what we will have if voices are silenced, and if our right to defend ourselves with weapons are taken away.

Consider me "outraged."

 

This is the free market at work, not an infringement of free speech.  A company shouldn't be forced to deliver any content that it doesn't want to. 

These companies are just refusing to bake a cake.

 

 

[UndertheHalo]

1 hour ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/corner/heng-gets-facebook-blocked/amp/

Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. have way too much power in censorship of political speech.

Here's a woman running for Congress whose ad was censored for no good reason. 

Not only do liberals hate the second amendment, they now hate the first amendment as well.

What Facebook is doing is absolutely not in line with the spirit of American free speech. Congress needs to act and consider these social media giants to be part of the "public square," making it illegal to censor political speech.

Alex Jones just got banned from YouTube. He's fringe, you may not agree with him, but he should not be censored.

We do not, and should not, live under an authoritarian state, which is what we will have if voices are silenced, and if our right to defend ourselves with weapons are taken away.

Consider me "outraged."

You don’t need Facebook or YouTube to get Alex Jones insane bullshit.  If you want it, go to directly to the source.  No one is shutting down his fuc*king nightmare studio.  These platforms have terms of service.  He’s plainly violated those terms of service.  Which btw.  They solely have the right to dictate and interpret.  

I wonder, where is your outrage when Alex Jones lies incites his lunatic followers to harass the victims of Sandy Hook to such an extent that they literally have to move.  You aren’t allowed to scream fire in a crowded theatre.  Believe it or not there are limits on free speech. It’s well past time that this fu*cker got shut down.  He can broadcast his shit without anyone’s help. 

Actually ive got a great idea. Since you’re so worried about Alex Jones.  Why don’t you go buy some of his supplements and help the cause.  I hear he has ones that will fight off the gay chemicals that the Clintons are pumping into the water.  Seems like a  mutually beneficial deal for you and Alex. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

Alex jones can try and prove that in court.  Hope he afford it. 

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

Forget Alex Jones, he was discredited a long time ago. You're missing the point.

What about the woman in California running for congress who was censored for a completely reasonable political ad?

I would love to hear you defend that.

What’s her name ?  I’d love to see how reasonable she is. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Spirit]

6 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube are acting as a monopoly.

If the oil companies colluded and tripled the priced for oil, we would all be upset.

The first amendment is about freedom of dissent in political speech, which is vital in a free society, which Democrats evidently are no longer interested in.

The first amendment also grants freedom of religion. That being said, I highly doubt that cake baker (wrongly) refusing service to homosexuals has a monopoly on the cake baking industry.

 

If Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube all tripled their prices, it would still be free.

While a single baker refusing to make a wedding cake for homosexuals (or any kind of Halloween cake or cupcake ... yeah, that detail often gets ignored) may not have a monopoly on the cake baking industry nationally, he/she may locally.

 

 

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

Forget Alex Jones, he was discredited a long time ago. You're missing the point.

What about the woman in California running for congress who was censored for a completely reasonable political ad?

I would love to hear you defend that.

Defend what ? You’re throwing a fit about Alex Jones and this one other lady.  I have no idea who she is.  There are literally hundreds of thousands, millions maybe of right wing people posting on the big social media platforms.  The overwhelming majority of them are under no threat of being censored.  You’re making up a narrative that simply does not exist. 

Alex Jones is vile scum bag.  They should have shut him down years ago.  Stop being faux outraged for him. 

[Thomas]

I started another thread before this one that probably would have been more appropriate regarding this article
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/nyus-scott-galloway-zuckerberg-is-the-most-dangerous-person-in-the-world.html

Certainly I don't feel that these companies did anything wrong in adhering to their TOS when disabling these accounts. Certainly within their rights and subjectively, morally right. There is though a point to be made that, illustrated by the Alex Jones shenanigans, that there is a tremendous amount of power and influence being wielded by a dramatically few people.  Something liberals generally in the past weren't fans of.

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

I started another thread before this one that probably would have been more appropriate regarding this article
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/nyus-scott-galloway-zuckerberg-is-the-most-dangerous-person-in-the-world.html

Certainly I don't feel that these companies did anything wrong in adhering to their TOS when disabling these accounts. Certainly within their rights and subjectively, morally right. There is though a point to be made that, illustrated by the Alex Jones shenanigans, that there is a tremendous amount of power and influence being wielded by a dramatically few people.  Something liberals generally in the past weren't fans of.

If it’s a discussion about whether or not a handful of companies wield too much power in their space i think that’s a fair and good one.   Personally. 

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

If it’s a discussion about whether or not a handful of companies wield too much power in their space i think that’s a fair and good one.   Personally. 

Yeah though certainly this argument, which is I think clearly a good one,  is being wedge into the unrelated argument of the appropriateness of Alex Jones being permabanned. Because of that I see many people on both sides conflating the two arguments.

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

If all of the gas stations refused service to white males because they fit the profile of a Trump supporter, is that okay?

I'm all for freedom of religion, but being religious shouldn't give you a license to discriminate against people. I feel the same way about Muslims discriminating against infadels.

I'm okay with CNN and MSNBC having a liberal slant, only because there is no monopoly. Fox News has a conservative slant.

Whites are not excluded from racial protection laws.  Your premise is false. 

Can they decline service because of their political affiliation ? I would say that legally, yes they can as political affiliation is not a protected class.  

I also find the comment about Muslims interesting.  Do you believe that Muslims discriminating against “infidels” is a real thing in this country ? 

Edited August 7, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

Here's an example of a left-wing group who got censored by Facebook. Perhaps you can sympathize with them.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/02/left-wing-activist-group-facebook-dangerous-threat-to-free-speech/

Why would I sympathize with them ? And i will never ever give breitbart a click.  Sorry. 

[Rico]

14 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

If all of the gas stations refused service to white males because they fit the profile of a Trump supporter, is that okay?

Alex Jones didn't get banned because he fits a profile. He was banned for actual things he did.

[UndertheHalo]

20 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

Shoot the messenger. Got it.

No, I won’t acknowledge that “messenger” because I have no respect for an entity that is barely a step above Alex Jones.  If you’re going to bring breitbart in as a reference point then we have nothing to discuss.

btw,

so who was the censored  “reasonable” congressional candidate you were bemoaning ?  You never answered that. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Rico]

Just now, BackUpTheTruck said:

YouTube is censoring Dennis Prager. What did Dennis Prager do?

Shiiiiit.  Never even heard of this dude.  Why don't you tell me what he did?

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, BackUpTheTruck said:

Only if they are radicals.

That’s not what I asked.  Do you believe that there is a non anecdotal incidence of Muslims in the US discriminating against “infidels” ?