patrick.net

Make an example of that company @patrick
Teach the others what happens when they mess with the Poobah!

I called all of their VC's, and happened on one who said he would definitely have a word with them. He didn't seem to like the fact that they were rejecting candidates specifically for political reasons.

But such filtering of engineers for "ideological purity" is almost universal in Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Anyone who questions the mainstream media lies, distortions, and omissions in public is unlikely to be employed.

Trump's Tweets about repealing section 230 are the wrong way to go and would make it legally dangerous to run a forum at all. His point about limiting 230 to cases where the platform is not selectively editing according to the politics of the poster is the right way to go.

Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Patrick says

His point about limiting 230 to cases where the platform is not selectively editing according to the politics of the poster is the right way to go.

And who determines if they are doing this? And isn’t it their free speech right to do so? The proposal is basically that you must not censor voices you disagree with (suppress your right to free speech) or else we’ll allow yahoos to sue you for stuff other yahoos posted.

We need new laws and definitions, what we have isn’t sufficient. We need to distinguish between people running websites and essential utilities. If Twitter doesn’t want Alex Jones posting, that’s their right, if Visa won’t process credit card payments or go daddy won’t host his dns, that’s suppressing his right to free speech.

ignoreme says

If Twitter doesn’t want Alex Jones posting, that’s their right, if Visa won’t process credit card payments or go daddy won’t host his dns, that’s suppressing his right to free speech.

The closer Twitter becomes a monopoly in its niche, the more it really is a suppression of Alex Jones' free speech. It's a question of effective alternatives. Are there any?

On second thought, Trump may be playing a clever game here in attacking section 230. All the big tech companies are going to be up in arms about it, but that just gives the issue more publicity. Trump is expert at using MSM outrage to get publicity. That's how he got elected to begin with.

And when the big tech companies start complaining, millions more people are going to be made aware of the fact that those tech companies routinely censor conservative voices.

OccasionalCortex says

He was waiting for Zuck or Jack to totally fuck up. It was Jack who did so. Legal Casus Beli delivered.

Does he need congress for that? If yes, he does not have majority for 1.5 years already, and should have done that earlier.

OccasionalCortex says

Nope. His EO just asks one bureaucracy to submit a request to another to review section 230. Of course, he probably has all the right people involved already in place to get the outcome he wants. Such is the power of the Administrative State and it is 100% Congress' fault for it being this way.

GOOD.

Patrick says

The closer Twitter becomes a monopoly in its niche, the more it really is a suppression of Alex Jones' free speech. It's a question of effective alternatives. Are there any?

Where in the constitution does it say that people controlling a monopoly don't have a right to free speech? You have a right on your website to censor and ban anything you don't like, why can't Twitter?

It's the anti-competitive behavior we need to crack down on. It wasn't the Twitter ban that hurt Alex Jones, it was being cutoff from ad revenue, payment processing, hosting, etc. That shit needs to stop. You own Twitter, fine, that's your printing press, it's no different then Bezos owning WaPo, print what you want, and you shouldn't have to worry about being sued because you didn't take down every offensive post that Karen complained about.

You run a non-speech related business like payment processing, web hosting, or ad serving, these are the types of things that need section 230, and they should have no content influence whatsoever. Like they should be mandated by law to serve everyone who isn't breaking the law.

The odd thing about this issue, from Trump's standpoint, is that if indeed you took away Twitter et all's liability protection they would have to more intensely fact check everything which given the degree Trump lies and defames people would make Twitter et all a completely inhospitable place for Trump to post his 3 AM wet dreams. It would also of course destroy their business model which is at the base of the threat. If Trump wants to post what he wants when he wants, unfettered he should start Trump Twitter. Isn't that the free market answer? What's stopping him?

marcus says

Why was this flagged ?

If you were trying to be ironic by flagging me, this is more ironic.

marcus says

marcus says

Why was this flagged ?

That should not have been flagged.

@OccasionalCortex please stop that.

Flag only things that are directly insulting other users personally.

But to the point of the image: it is wrong to censor "bullshit" because "bullshit" literally says nothing at all other than "I am having a temper tantrum."

There needs to be a clear obvious rational reason to censor anything. Like directly insulting other users, or advocating violence.

Otherwise, it's wrong.

Patrick says

censor "bullshit"

Fact checking is not censoring. It is rude to fact check a President, but realize, we aren't talking about a president making a promise he can't keep. We are talking about made up facts.

Why isn't having a President that makes up his own facts more of an issue ? Of course it is with the majority, that is all of us people that aren't in the cult.

But also having a President that tweets so much ? Wtf ? I just looked it up. His record of 142 tweets on Jan 20, broke his previous record of 123 on December 12.

So in addition to being a dishonest narcissist and possibly sociopath, apparently he also suffers from OCD. Makes my Patrick.net habit seem relatively tame.

My point is only that everyone should have their say, as long as they are not being personal about it.

Listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they have nothing valuable to say.

OccasionalCortex says

He was waiting for Zuck or Jack to totally fuck up.

Trump invited Zuck and Peter Thiel (a conservative tech investor) to the whitehouse for a private dinner back in Nov 2019. Ever since then, I feel like Zuck has changed, and specifically he's warmed up with Trump. I forget the specifics, but I've seen a few comments from Zuck since then that stuck out to me as much more pro Trump than usual. I think Trump solved his Zuck problem in that meeting.

Also, Zuck broke ranks with Twitter today, and said he does not support Twitter-like censoring, which he talks about in the first minute:
www.youtube.com/embed/Mu7SgOZ2nEs

Towards the end, Zuck also some made comments about how proud he was to be an american due to us going back to the moon, and how he felt the govt+private partnership was working well for these space projects, and some other stuff. Zuck isn't stupid - he knows how important his words are, and he probably tries to be deliberate with most things he says, making sure they serve him a beneficial a purpose. So, to me, these words smelled kinda MAGA'ish.

What Section 230 Means, by a lawyer who wrote a thesis on it in Law School.

Here's more "fact checking" and "integrity maintaining" by Twitter



"Glorifying Violence"

please...

If they applied the same standard to other tweets, they'd have to markup millions of tweets.

Hircus says

Here's more "fact checking" and "integrity maintaining" by Twitter

HOLY SHIT: CHECK THIS OUT:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100780744704

You can't see it on the timeline, so I post it here.

Calling Rioters thugs is now "Glorifying Violence." according to Twitter.

Smack them down, Trump, bankrupt that shit.

Idiot.

"when the looting starts the shooting starts."

Lets see if they treat iran equally

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1266368492258816002

marcus says

Idiot.

"when the looting starts the shooting starts."

Yep. I agree. We saw what happened when you give "Space to Grieve"

Looting innocent people's property ain't justice, it's criminal. Like what happened to this poor guy, who put his lifesavings just a little while ago into a Sports Bar, that was demolished by rioters.

Hircus says

NoCoupForYou says

Ok, that makes a little more sense now. I didn't see a second part of the tweet until now.

The main message I get here is not one of glorifying violence, its more a message stating reassurances that we will pursue law and order. It reassures people that resources and contingency are committed to deal with the situation.

If my house gets invaded by gunmen, will I still be allowed to cheer to arrival of the police swat team who saves me? Or will I be a bad "violence glorifier"?

In wasn't the use of the word "thug" that twitter thought was glorifying violence.

No local law enforcement people are going to give a standing order to open fire on lootters, unless it with rubber bullets.

The President who we all know is prone to bs and hyperbole shouldn't be saying that just becasue it makes he likes to sound like a bad ass. Maybe a good way to think of what twitter is doing is they are trying to help Trump be more Presidential. I think a lot of us miss the days when Trump had better handlers handlers (such as gen Kelly) that helped prevent him from making a fool of himself on a daily basis.

marcus says

No local law enforcement people are going to give a standing order to open fire on lootters, unless it with rubber bullets.

Trump explicitly mentioned the Military. Good thing you teach math and not reading comp.

marcus says

The President who we all know is prone to bs and hyperbole shouldn't be saying that just becasue it makes he likes to sound like a bad ass. Maybe a good way to think of what twitter is doing is they are trying to help Trump be more Presidential. I think a lot of us miss the days when Trump had better handlers handlers (such as gen Kelly) that helped prevent him from making a fool of himself on a daily basis.

Trump isn't the first President, Governor, or other elected US Official to threaten looters with violence. It is Legal, Moral, and Ethical for an Executive to do so.

Many leaders have not only signaled, but carried through, with violent punishments. Like Bill Clinton when he paused his Presidential Campaign in 1992 to attend the execution of a murderer in Arkansas to show he was tough on crime.

Also, I hope Trump doesn't fall for the bait.

If Democrat Mayors and/or Governors want to call in the National Guard, let them do so.

If they don't, it's on them.

None of that "Let the responsible President call in the Guard, then after the cleanup, the Left blames him and calls him a Ray Cyst" shit we usually see.

California has lots of National Guard and State Troopers/CHIPs under Newsome. So does NYC. Let Newsome/DeBlasio/Cuomo do their job, or not.

Frankly, the NYPD should call in sick tonight.

NoCoupForYou says

Good thing you don't teach reading comprehension.

It's a tweet. Open to interpretation. "the looting starts the shooting starts. "

Hey, maybe he meant something else, but it's not a question of reading comprehension.

NoCoupForYou says

Like Bill Clinton when he paused his Presidential Campaign in 1992 to attend the execution of a murderer in Arkansas to show he was tough on crime.

So someone that is sentenced to death for a heinous murder or worse, is just like some teens following other idiots in to loot a store that's already wide open for the looting by other idiot assholes.

Advocating death for someone our system found guilty of crimes so bad they were sentenced to death, is different than advocating death for a bunch of ignorant asshole adolescents.

marcus says

It's a tweet. Open to interpretation. "the looting starts the shooting starts. "

NoCoupForYou says

Trump explicitly mentioned the Military.

He did NOT mention Police or Law Enforcement. ONLY the Military.

I only mentioned law enforcement becasue they are the ones that make these decisions. WE have standards for these things. He's not going to send the military in to kill looters.

But I guess he thinks it sounds really cool to say he will. Especially with HIS base.

What the hell are you even arguing ?

marcus says

I only mentioned law enforcement becasue they are the ones that make these decisions. WE have standards for these things. He's not going to send the military in to kill looters.

Jeeze Marcus? LAW ENFORCEMENT decided to abandon their own Precinct? LAW ENFORCEMENT decides how and when to confront Rioters?

The Mayors and Governors are just ornaments, and don't tell City/State Employees what to do and how to do it in unusual situations?

C'mon, man.

I think its also pretty reasonable that he was just making a general statement like "As you know when the looting starts, shooting usually starts too, but we will maintain control against any difficulty."

Doesn't shooting usually breakout when looting starts to happen? I know I've read stories about riots, especially the LA riots, where people used their guns to defend their small business or home against looters. Even individuals grab their guns because people start robbing others on the street in the crazed frenzy. Once people realize the cops ain't comin, they feel invincible and go on crime sprees, and people defend themselves with force.

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Trump would do himself a whole lot of good if he improved his awful communication skills. But that doesn't make it right for Twitter to take advantage of the opportunity to set the narrative how they desire.

Glorification of violence is still a bullshit characterization even if he did mean it as a threat. He's clearly talking about using law enforcement to END the violent rioting looters - being strong and sending a message of no tolerance is desirable in times like this to scare them into respecting the authorities.

marcus says

I only mentioned law enforcement becasue they are the ones that make these decisions. WE have standards for these things. He's not going to send the military in to kill looters.

But I guess he thinks it sounds really cool to say he will. Especially with HIS base.

What the hell are you even arguing ?

Military in this case would be the National Guard. And the Guard (controlled by the Gov) has been deployed throughout our history during times of labor and other riots, plus national disasters specifically to prevent looting.

Patrick says

I called all of their VC's, and happened on one who said he would definitely have a word with them. He didn't seem to like the fact that they were rejecting candidates specifically for political reasons.

But such filtering of engineers for "ideological purity" is almost universal in Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Anyone who questions the mainstream media lies, distortions, and omissions in public is unlikely to be employed.

Wow, I'm surprised at these emails and that nothing really followed up on rescinding the interview offer. I guess since you didn't have an actual job offer or job yet it is easier to rescind the offer on a mere interview, but still the political motive is clearly spelled out. SV has fallen mightily since the pioneer days during the dot com boom era where libertarian forces and diversity of opinion were powering innovation that made today's SJW companies possible. Really a shame. Sorry that happened to you, meritocracy really has died in SV long ago.

There's this:

Trump sometimes tweets way over 100 per day. That warning is guaranteed to get a tweet viewed way more than his usual.

Cultists: "Oooohh woopie, I'm so excited, Trump triggered the thought police again, yeah, baby !!"

Meanwhile the reality based folks are wondering: "Will this country ever recover from this embarrassing shitstorm/dumpster fire ?"

Zuck is wavering. Yesterday, many FB employees protested Zuck's defense of free speech and free expression. Many employees took the day off in protest, including higher ups.

Now, Zuck has said FB may reconsider their policy on politicians who use violent speech.

marcus says

Meanwhile the reality based folks are wondering: "Will this country ever recover from this embarrassing shitstorm/dumpster fire ?"

You mean Teachers and Academics, Diversity Counselors, Social Workers, Biased Journalists (99% of them), and PR Executives. Nobody else gives a fuck.

BobbyD says

Patrick says

There's this:

Hmmm, all you have to do is click the view button, it's still there.

It's not on the timeline. You have to get there by clicking the link.

Meanwhile, Khameni and Farrakhan are perfectly unadulterated.