Grand Pacifica Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .61626364656667»

Watuold wrote:I am enjoying these topics. It really makes me think about my political opinions and I it is really cool to hear the opinions of others.

Glad you like it!

Ecania wrote:I donít support these actions. Iíve always wanted the results to be certified

Yeah, I think only a real fringe would support storming the Capitol.

What do you think about the cabinet considering the 25th ammendment?

Koobland wrote:Yeah, I think only a real fringe would support storming the Capitol.

What do you think about the cabinet considering the 25th ammendment?

I think it would be interesting. I mean personally I think itís useless because thereís only 13 days left of Trumpís presidency.

Ecania wrote:I think it would be interesting. I mean personally I think itís useless because thereís only 13 days left of Trumpís presidency.

I agree, pretty useless. Other than as a signal.

I read this in a UK newspaper today:

Or better yet, to rush through a lightning impeachment: indictment by the House, followed the same day by conviction in the Senate. You donít need debate. The desecration of Capitol Hill by Trump mobs - on explicit incitement by the president - speaks for itself.

Topic of the Day: Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has criticized Joe Bidenís plan for student debt cancellation. Is student debt cancellation good or fair?

Moimmusgalandia

Ecania wrote:Topic of the Day: Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has criticized Joe Bidenís plan for student debt cancellation. Is student debt cancellation good or fair?

Not really IMO. The money would have to come from some where, and we already have issues with taxes in the country. Unless he proposes a cap/system much like in Germany. Not a big fan of that for other reasons but atleast the 2-3 years of mandated service could offset the cost somehow.

Ecania wrote:Topic of the Day: Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has criticized Joe Bidenís plan for student debt cancellation. Is student debt cancellation good or fair?

I think its an interesting idea. Dont have a strong opinion. Being from Europe I look af American fees and barely believe it. And I'm from UK where the fees are highest in Europe. £9k max. And we have a tonne of top global unis

I view student debt cancellation as being unfair to those who paid of their debt. I also don't like how other people will be forced to pay for other peoples individual choices. Also if you don't have permanent cancellation, new people will still take on debt.

Topic of the day will resume tomorrow. Some big stuff happened today in the US that deserves discussions.

Topic of the Day: Twitter has permanently banned President Donald Trump and Apple and Google plan to remove the free speech alternative Parler.

Thoughts?

The british lions

Ecania wrote:Topic of the Day: Twitter has permanently banned President Donald Trump and Apple and Google plan to remove the free speech alternative Parler.

Thoughts?

They are all private companies so well within their rights. Unless people think that these should be regulated by the state?

The british lions

Ecania wrote:Topic of the Day: Twitter has permanently banned President Donald Trump and Apple and Google plan to remove the free speech alternative Parler.

Thoughts?

They should not have banned him. They are within their rights but it is not helpful in terms of calming down the situation with Trump voters, and all it does is promote further suspicion of big tech and of the left's agenda in general, all it will do is stoke up more anger and violence. In this single action they have incited violence more strongly than Trump has ever done. As for Parler, this represents these companies trying to squash any competition that is different from them and is upholding the monopoly that they have over the social communications sector.

Ecania

Koobland wrote:They are all private companies so well within their rights. Unless people think that these should be regulated by the state?

I think a lot of them know that they are allowed to do that but they view it as wrong and so they donít want them to do it. The people who were angry about it wanted to move to Parler but then Apple and Google decided to ban the app from their stores which they also view as wrong. So many are now looking to the government for answers. Some want to add more regulation and others want to remove regulations that add protections like Section 230.

The british lions

Ecania wrote:I think a lot of them know that they are allowed to do that but they view it as wrong and so they donít want them to do it. The people who were angry about it wanted to move to Parler but then Apple and Google decided to ban the app from their stores which they also view as wrong. So many are now looking to the government for answers. Some want to add more regulation and others want to remove regulations that add protections like Section 230.

Personally I think both actions were wrong. As for my solution, Iíd probably support a mix of both. I donít usually support regulation increases as I favor a free market and prefer deregulation, but Tech isnít like other industries. I support having a bigger free market in like 90% of industries and in the overall economy, by a decent/good amount too, but tech isnít one of those industries, it calls for a mix of both.

The british lions

Ecania wrote:Personally I think both actions were wrong. As for my solution, Iíd probably support a mix of both. I donít usually support regulation increases as I favor a free market and prefer deregulation, but Tech isnít like other industries. I support having a bigger free market in like 90% of industries and in the overall economy, by a decent/good amount too, but tech isnít one of those industries, it calls for a mix of both.

I think that they should be able to be held legally responsible, and should have to go through the courts when they want to deplatform someone or deplatform an app, if they can provide significant evidence that that person or app has done something wrong, they will be allowed to deplatform them.

Ecania

The british lions wrote:They should not have banned him. They are within their rights but it is not helpful in terms of calming down the situation with Trump voters, and all it does is promote further suspicion of big tech and of the left's agenda in general, all it will do is stoke up more anger and violence. In this single action they have incited violence more strongly than Trump has ever done. As for Parler, this represents these companies trying to squash any competition that is different from them and is upholding the monopoly that they have over the social communications sector.

I think saying that they incited more violence is 1. Not supported by any evidence. 2. Bull crap - the President told them to do it. His completely unsubstantiated lies about the election being stolen was stoking up violence. Personally, if I was a CEO of one of those companies I'd have done that a while back.

Also, its worth saying Trump lost this election massively both in terms of popular vote and this time also electoral college. He is a massive looser. I also think he never actually grapsed just how much influence his words have.

Ecania wrote:Personally I think both actions were wrong. As for my solution, Iíd probably support a mix of both. I donít usually support regulation increases as I favor a free market and prefer deregulation, but Tech isnít like other industries. I support having a bigger free market in like 90% of industries and in the overall economy, by a decent/good amount too, but tech isnít one of those industries, it calls for a mix of both.

You can make the mixed bag argument about all industries. And, I agree. Although I would never regulate who they chose to host on the platform. Not one bit.

The british lions wrote:I think that they should be able to be held legally responsible, and should have to go through the courts when they want to deplatform someone or deplatform an app, if they can provide significant evidence that that person or app has done something wrong, they will be allowed to deplatform them.

That assumes that everyone has an automatic right to their service. That is wrong.

A shop doesn't have to serve you (cake for a gay couple example), a restaurant or a club can have a dress code and not admit you, a social media platform can decide who to host on it.

No one has a god given right to contract with companies. Freedom to contract is the bedrock to any free capitalist society. Absolute bedrock.

Dionysu

The british lions

Koobland wrote:I think saying that they incited more violence is 1. Not supported by any evidence. 2. Bull crap - the President told them to do it. His completely unsubstantiated lies about the election being stolen was stoking up violence. Personally, if I was a CEO of one of those companies I'd have done that a while back.

Also, its worth saying Trump lost this election massively both in terms of popular vote and this time also electoral college. He is a massive looser. I also think he never actually grapsed just how much influence his words have.

I cannot provide any substantial evidence for that claim because the cause of violence is subjective and anecdotal, similarly, your claim that the President saying that the election had been stolen caused violence cannot be proven in any meaningful way. The president told them to protest, he never told them to be violent. Telling them to protest was unwise, but he was within his rights, and his supporters were within their rights in protesting. I am not challenging the fact that he lost the election so that adds nothing of worth to the debate.

The british lions

Koobland wrote:That assumes that everyone has an automatic right to their service. That is wrong.

A shop doesn't have to serve you (cake for a gay couple example), a restaurant or a club can have a dress code and not admit you, a social media platform can decide who to host on it.

No one has a god given right to contract with companies. Freedom to contract is the bedrock to any free capitalist society. Absolute bedrock.

A small business refusing to serve a cake with a phrase on it that goes against their morals is very different to a multinational social media company refusing the President of A World Power a platform to voice his opinions. I believe the law should change for social media companies, since if it does not, it means we are giving companies the power to heavily influence social narrative and beliefs, and that is wrong in my opinion.

Ecania and Moimmusgalandia

The british lions wrote:A small business refusing to serve a cake with a phrase on it that goes against their morals is very different to a multinational social media company refusing the President of A World Power a platform to voice his opinions. I believe the law should change for social media companies, since if it does not, it means we are giving companies the power to heavily influence social narrative and beliefs, and that is wrong in my opinion.

Companies do have the power to influence social narrative and beliefs - there's a whole industry about it - marketing.

If a small business owner can refuse service because it goes against their morals then why can't a big business do it?

This is capitalism and freedom to contract. The president of the US or me - it doesn't matter. We're both users who agreed the same terms and conditions and the company rhas reserved the right to remove anyone they deem to have broken their terms. Pretty simple. Its the free market.

The british lions

Companies using marketing impact the social narrative to a much lesser extent than the biggest social media companies in the western world.

The things I am suggesting apply to social media companies specifically, not to all big businesses.

So if the most popular (almost monopolies) social media platforms were communist, them banning every person who thinks capitalism is a good idea would be totally fair?

1. Sadly Yondora has ceased to exist :(

2. A new poll has been created, check it out!

Ecania wrote:1. Sadly Yondora has ceased to exist :(

2. A new poll has been created, check it out!

Are you planning to appoint a new Secretary of the Interior. Perhaps it could be someone who takes on recruitment which really seems to have dropped off :(

I voted liberalism and I just wanted to clarify that I mean classical Millian liberalism. It means personal responsibility, personal obligations, and freedom

«12. . .61626364656667»

Advertisement