I think this is what's called a slippery slope fallacy.
I think this is what's called a slippery slope fallacy.
Ok, I'll bite.I just hope that when a smart trump mk2 takes power and does this to people he has political disagreements with we can then agree that private corporations should not be able to cancel you out of existence like this.
No matter who this is done to, doing it to anyone is wrong. This is like a light version of the chinese social credit system, only more free-form and open to arbitrary punishment since each company is doing whatever the hell they want to maintain virtue points and there's not one centralized governmental point system.
The whitehouse.gov website supports livestreaming of events. https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/Nothing official as far as I'm aware, which does seem a bit flawed. Here in the UK, the PM's direct messages (such as the ones on coronavirus) go out on the BBC, which is of course a state broadcaster-- it's part of their remit.
Unofficially, US news outlets are pretty much always willing to cover White House press briefings, because refusing would be giving competitors a free advantage in coverage.
White House Press Room, the place where Sean Spicer, Troll Under A Bridge-Sanders and Not McEnany Sense spun their lies on television.But yeah, the President should probably have an alternate way to communicate with the people without depending on third-parties to carry or host the message.
"Slippery slope" is not strictly a fallacy.I think this is what's called a slippery slope fallacy.
Ok, I'll bite.
What's the difference between Cancelling someone who has spurned his followers to cause damage on a massive scale and Removing a weed sellers ability to vote?
Arguably, selling weed is a much tamer offense. Something that was actually decriminalized in many places people are still being arrested for using the drug. But still, that person can not determine the shape he wants to take his country in due to his arrest and conviction.
Social Media is not a right. And more importantly, there's precedent of being forbidden to use things once you commit a crime with them.
Hunt the wrong thing at the wrong time, and you have your hunting license revoked.
Some states have it if that police are called to a scene of Domestic Violence, the guns are taken away.
Some hackers aren't allowed to use a computer.
Heeeee's back: Hacker Kevin Mitnick free to use computers again
His first e-mail message will be addressed to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who invited Mitnick to testify before Congress on computer hacking in 2000.www.computerworld.com
Are you a drunk driver? You lose your license, because it's not a right.
License Suspension or Revocation After DUI Convictions
A license suspension means that you cannot drive for a certain time, while a license revocation means that you cannot drive unless you apply for a new license after a certain time.www.justia.com
Hell, if you're found guilty of abusing your children, the government (thankfully) has ways to keep you from them, even though they are your own blood.
And we never had a problem with any of that.
People might have sympathy for him, but he's not losing a basic human right. If it was, our twitter handles would be tied to our Social Security Numbers. Companies are allowed to control who use their platforms as long as they make it free to everyone who follows their rules. Trump did not follow their rules. In fact, he tried to pass legislation to have government dictate what private companies can and can not do in order to circumvent their own rulings.
Which is odd, because I always thought Conservatives believed in Laissez Faire and the Invisible Hand of the Market... The Government telling private companies how to run their business really sounds like the Closed Fist of the State and sounds a lot like those pesky Regulations that Trump hates.
It's wrong to pretend by violating the laws of the company that he wishes to abuse, they are somehow unjust for revoking his privileges.
You didn't show any cause-effect relation though. Just a strawman interpretation of events and a fallacy."Slippery slope" is not strictly a fallacy.
The Basic Slippery Slope Argument | Informal Logic
ojs.uwindsor.ca
What makes it a fallacy or not is if there is no relation between the first action and the second, for example:
"If we allow gay marriage, then what's next, people marrying their pets?"
This is distinguished by valid cause and effect:
- "If we implement voter ID, then poor people won't be able to get one!"
- "don't ever do heroin, because you'll get addicted and eventually ruin your life"
You can't just call out "slippery slope" as a thought-terminating cliche.
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what happened in interwar Germany.It's only going to get worse. It's going to be a "first they came for..." situation.
It is what is called an "informal fallacy". Many informal fallacies may be technically valid arguments depending on circumstances, but unpersuasive."Slippery slope" is not strictly a fallacy.
The Basic Slippery Slope Argument | Informal Logic
ojs.uwindsor.ca
So... companies should hire independent judges to make sure that they are following their own EULAs fairly for the consumer?The difference is that you have an accountable body of independent, impartial judges make that determination that someone actually sold weed and what punishment should fit this crime, ones which are appointed through the democratic process. Not unaccountable corpocrats and oligarchs who are supposed legally to be motivated by maximizing profit and not benefiting society.
This means that if it's profitable for them, they will go the nazi way or the fascist way in half a second, as long as they think they can make enough money doing that. They should not have such power with that being the case.
It's not about the size of the offense or the specific punishment, it's about who gets to decide it. Unaccountable companies shouldn't get to do that. If you had a legal procedure for banning someone off twitter in the same way you can get a restraining order or be banned from accessing the internet if you do hacking, that's fine. If some fuck decides to do it to make a buck off of the virtue that follows an announcement of the ban of Trump, that's not fine. Pretty basic distinction.
This thing is like when colleges don't use the justice system and adjudicate claims of rape themselves through an internal investigation. There's been lots of lawsuits that have shown that they do not have the power to take away things from people based on their paralegal antics and that you have to actually use the legal system to take things away from people on the basis of their conduct because the only way of ACTUALLY establishing conduct is through the legal system. Everything else is just opinions.
The picture does. Censoring the "far right" will just create a new "far right", defined as the right-most position on the spectrum.You didn't show any cause-effect relation though.................................................................................................................................................
We've seen this happen before. Maybe it won't be "ban the most right leaning thing". Maybe it'll be in the form of "ban 'hateful' speech". But censorship always creeps. That's what it does. Once you make concessions, it becomes easier to make further and further concessions. The Overton window shifts.The implicit claim behind that "slippery slope" argument is that the intent is to always ban the most right-wing thing. As this is extraordinarily spurious, it's a fallacy.
No, we should pass laws pertaining to the EULAs being followed, that companies will be regulated by, and action taken against users will have to be processed like any other thing that a company can try to do to an individual; through the courts. Anyone hired by the corporation would be biased towards it, it's like cops investigating cops in an internal investigation. The judges need to be independent.So... companies should hire independent judges to make sure that they are following their own EULAs fairly for the consumer?
I agree that this could lead to a bad precedent, especially since Twitter seems to once again haphazardly applied and updated its own moderation rules. But it is NOT censorship. Please read actual experts on the First Amendment and free speech.I think it sets a bad precedent. It's censorship, plain and simple.
This is SO wrong. First, there are many more large cloud and IaaS providers out there before the "big tech monopolies" you named, including Oracle. Maybe you've heard of Oracle -- the founder and chairman, Larry Ellison, is not only one of the wealthiest people in the world, he's also a big Trump supporter. He and other Oracle executives have donated to Trump's campaigns and hosted fundraisers for him (and in return, Trump arranged the sweethart TikTok deal). The fact that Oracle doesn't want to dip its toes in THIS social media company speaks volumes.And no, you can't just "make your own", look what happened to Parler, they attacked it from every angle.
It's the big tech monopolies, google, facebook, twitter, amazon, or nothing. They have the reach, and can therefore manipulate, like 90% of the internet's population.
That is the absolute problem. I won't speak for the entire left, but I'm completely confused on the malleability the Right seems to have when these things affects what they hold dear. It's the lack of consistency that sticks in a lot of people's craw when it comes to dealing with situations like this.No, we should pass laws pertaining to the EULAs being followed, that companies will be regulated by, and action taken against users will have to be processed like any other thing that a company can try to do to an individual; through the courts. Anyone hired by the corporation would be biased towards it, it's like cops investigating cops in an internal investigation. The judges need to be independent.
I thought the left was the one who is supposed to be AGAINST big business. When did it become the ancap mecca? I thought regulation of big business to give more rights and power to small people is what we were supposed to want.
The word "censorship" has meaning outside of the constitutional context, you know that right?But it is NOT censorship. Please read actual experts on the First Amendment and free speech.
Oracle, from what I understand, which is little because I almost never hear anything about Oracle, mainly does database stuff. They're a tech giant in a different way, like how Sony is a tech giant in a different way.This is SO wrong. First, there are many more large cloud and IaaS providers out there before the "big tech monopolies" you named, including Oracle. Maybe you've heard of Oracle -- the founder and chairman, Larry Ellison, is not only one of the wealthiest people in the world, he's also a big Trump supporter. He and other Oracle executives have donated to Trump's campaigns and hosted fundraisers for him (and in return, Trump arranged the sweethart TikTok deal). The fact that Oracle doesn't want to dip its toes in THIS social media company speaks volumes.
A Facebook user openly streamed the Christchurch massacre on the platform, but, for some reason, 8chan got the blame for it. This is how they attack competitors. They take an example and exaggerate it, and make it seem like the WHOLE PLATFORM is full of unsavory types plotting violence.It's the fact that users were and are openly discussing and even plotting violent acts in an effort to overthrow the government.
I dunno there was a Disney star who went on a Doxxing spree before based on just accusations. Sometimes falling for fake info and other times doxxing the wrong people.Yep. If Trump were anyone except the president of the USA, they'd have pulled the plug on his accounts long ago. This is not unfair victimisation of Trump, this is finally removing the advantageous exceptions they've given him for years and putting him on the same level playing field as other users.
They most certainly are getting rid of him now only because he's finished in politics - the Capitol riot just gave them the ability to do it slightly earlier than they were planning.
This has been a long running false claim, sorryAside from Parler getting removed by their hosting company, apparently hackers were able to get a data dump from Parler's servers, including posts, images and videos.
If this is true, I'm assuming we can add a lot of jobs of Americans dumb enough to put their personal information on Parler to this list.
Only for some.It's almost like actions have consequences.
and some started refusing to cover them.That's kind of the function of the press conferences-- but Trump started excluding outlets he had political disagreements with.
Glad I'm not the only one seeing things like that. I mean at least with the Chinese Social credit system there's fairly set rules and clear "If you do this this happens" results. Words I never thought I'd say here that the Chinese Social Credit system is better than something really.I just hope that when a smart trump mk2 takes power and does this to people he has political disagreements with we can then agree that private corporations should not be able to cancel you out of existence like this.
No matter who this is done to, doing it to anyone is wrong. This is like a light version of the chinese social credit system, only more free-form and open to arbitrary punishment since each company is doing whatever the hell they want to maintain virtue points and there's not one centralized governmental point system.
Pretty much V for Vendetta style actions there.Even the media outlets can decide just to not broadcast the President's message. There's nothing forcing them to do so, is there?
For example, I've heard that they cut away from him during his own speeches at rallies and such.
I wonder if the President can just unilaterally declare something to be "wrong", like through an executive order or something. Maybe declare a certain movement as a terrorist organization or something. Or perhaps it would be done more subtly. I think such a President would need the media on their side in order to do such a thing.
Lemme slip into the mindset of an evil genius for a second and theorize how such a thing might be done:
1) Stage an attack and make it seem like it was done in the name of your target's movement/ideology
1a) Alternately, just have the FBI or DoJ or whoever under the President's thumb to merely claim that an attack was carried out by the target movement
2) Use that to justify attacking it/censoring, and everyone sympathetic to it, from every angle.
Is it fallacy when before we were told Alex Jones was a special case and this wouldn't start happening to others he was just a case that specifically needed censoring?I think this is what's called a slippery slope fallacy.
That is the absolute problem. I won't speak for the entire left, but I'm completely confused on the malleability the Right seems to have when these things affects what they hold dear. It's the lack of consistency that sticks in a lot of people's craw when it comes to dealing with situations like this.
"Government shouldn't be interfering with Business. No, wait this new thing affects me or someone I like. Government, get in here."
It is the same flip-flopping that we've seen this entire administration.
From Supreme Court Picks:
Fact check: Senate Republicans moving to confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee but blocked Obama's
A claim addressing the double standard for consideration of the two presidents' Supreme Court nominees was correct on substance, off on timing.www.usatoday.com
From having no problem with Voter Suppression for other groups but feeling upset that their voting voice isn't heard to the level that they wish:
As Trump pushes baseless fraud claims, Republicans pledge tougher voting rules
Republican state lawmakers have begun to use President Donald Trump’s baseless charges of voter fraud to push for new restrictions on voting.www.reuters.com
Trump Adds to Debit and Republicans don't care. But can't even think about more Stimulus for Americans because omg the debt is soooo large...
What You Need to Know About President Trump's Impact on the National Debt
The national debt under President Trump increased by almost 36% to $27 trillion in January 2020.www.thebalance.com
Republicans ready to become deficit hawks again under a President Biden
Republicans are preparing to reembrace their inner deficit hawks after greenlighting big spending bills under President Trump. GOP senators say they expect to refocus on curbing the nation’s d…thehill.com
To how to deal with and/or consider Protesters:
Fox News Host Who Called BLM 'Poison’ Says Pro-Trump Mob Made Up Of ‘Solid Americans’
Tucker Carlson and other right-wing hosts have applied a double standard to the actions of protesters, seemingly based on whom and what they are protesting.www.forbes.com
There isn’t going to be a post-Trump pivot at Fox News
In the hours since the insurrection, Fox anchors like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have spent their time floating conspiracy theories.qz.com
All I want is consistency.
We definitely agree on the cops needing an independent investigation that's judges their actions on their merits, and not their comradery.