username5252758
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 month ago
#81
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Private Companies can and should let whoever they want on and discriminate freely. What they shouldn't be able to do is market themselves as a free speech public platform (which is a monopoly) and then start censoring people they don't like arbitrarily.
These sentences are mutually exclusive.
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 month ago
#82
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
The 'coincidences' I mentioned above mainly. Eg Biden performing better than Obama in swing states but worse than Obama overall.
In terms of share of the vote, Biden performed better overall than Obama did in 2012. He performed better in some states and worse in others - Obama won Iowa, Florida and Ohio both times, whereas Biden lost all three. On the other hand, Biden won Arizona and Georgia, which Obama never did. Why? Because 2012 was eight years earlier, and states politically shift over time. The "Rust Belt" got redder while the "Sun Belt" got bluer.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 month ago
#83
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
He didn't 😉🤣
He lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_U...ntial_election.

Trump lost both the popular vote and the electoral college vote.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#84
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
If it did that then it would be a publisher notbs content provider.

Private Companies can and should let whoever they want on and discriminate freely. What they shouldn't be able to do is market themselves as a free speech public platform (which is a monopoly) and then start censoring people they don't like arbitrarily.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for here, but I do agree (if this is what you're talking about) that it's not been pleasant seeing Facebook and Twitter become the global arbiters of who should have public speaking rights. Arguably it was quite wrong (and I speak as one who loathes him) for them to ban Trump, given that he was the most senior national elected official. There's also a deep cynicism in them continuing for years to platform various dictators and corrupt figures internationally no matter what they did but ditching Trump at the last minute on suddenly discovering that he was emanating hate speech.

The truth is that the social media giants want their cake and eat it. They want an assumed common carrier status and legal immunity, but at the same time they are under huge pressure to become editors. This isn't viable. It was inevitable as they became global de-facto monopolies in their spaces that this would happen and it isn't pretty.

Although I hate the idea in a way, I actually think they should now surrender their legal immunity and be treated like any other media. More pragmatically, they should also be broken up into something like country-by-country operators or perhaps one for groups, one for chats and so on. I don't know yet how to demonopolise them, but it needs to happen.
1
reply
username5252758
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 month ago
#85
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Although I hate the idea in a way, I actually think they should now surrender their legal immunity and be treated like any other media.
That simply would not work for any websites that predominately relies on user-created content, be it Facebook, Twitter, or even TSR. Absolutely everything would have to be pre-moderated for fear of the legal repercussions. Anything remotely controversial would be blocked because they are not going to employ a team of in-house lawyers to review the potentially libellous opinions of Tom from Dudley like a conventional news agency would.

Aside from destroying the user experience, it would almost certainly mean the websites are no longer financially viable just due to increased costs involved.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#86
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#86
(Original post by Calibrated.)
That simply would not work for any websites that predominately relies on user-created content, be it Facebook, Twitter, or even TSR. Absolutely everything would have to be pre-moderated for fear of the legal repercussions. Anything remotely controversial would be blocked because they are not going to employ a team of in-house lawyers to review the potentially libellous opinions of Tom from Dudley like a conventional news agency would.

Aside from destroying the user experience, it would almost certainly mean the websites are no longer financially viable just due to increased costs involved.
Yes, but it points a finger at the unviability of the current models. Let's not forget that Fakebook and Twitter have soaked up about half the world's advertising revenues and destroyed traditional media in localities and regions across the planet. That has significantly impacted both free speech and public information. Yet the model they run is to be wholly unaccountable, despite the huge dominance. Local media were always or generally accountable to local readerships at least. Now they have been forced into editing (against their will) out hate speech and obvious threats and sexual abuse and so on, their costs are rising and more and more attention goes onto what they do still allow through and the pernicious things they enable.

If we aren't going to impose legal liability for user content, then they must as an imperative be broken up. Facebook and Google are the most obvious targets, but others also need close examination for their market dominance like Apple and Microsoft. There have been attempts to do this before but they were weak and unsustained and random. That is no longer good enough.

I think we need a few bigger countries to start by teaching Facebook some manners and block them for a few months and see how they come begging back for access. It's amazing how much a good ban would teach them to behave. What they've done is Australia was absolutely shocking and showed really that they aren't much better than a bunch of gangsters running a protection racket.
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 month ago
#87
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Speaking from the Left, looking forward to this outcome as it will put the Democrats in all three branches with a big majority for the foreseeable future.
Speaking from the British Right, me too.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 month ago
#88
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Basically by scrapping this and replacing it the Trump admin will be able to force companies particularly tech and social media giants like Facebook to choose whether they are publishers or content providers. Publishers are responsible for their content (so could be liable for the content) and content providers who are merely providing a service to everyone and aren't anyway near as liable.

As it stands today, tech platforms like Facebook can more or less pick and choose what they are. This leads to the insane situation where somebody can be day banned from YouTube for saying "offensive" things but videos including Isis recruitment videos or all sorts of other disgusting things which clearly break T&C's stay up.

Basically by changing it, it will make it next to impossible for tech platforms to discriminate against people they dislike politically.
So Twitter would have been legally responsible for all of Trump's lies, incitement, etc.
In which case they would have banned him years ago!
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 month ago
#89
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Honestly I don't really have an opinion nor do I care if he really did lose. Democracy is overrated (see Aristotle)

... That said I DO genuinely think there was some dodgy stuff going on and a lot of coincidences which Trump brought up including the bellwether seats and states all going for Trump, his vote increasing but still losing. I think it's all far too convenient. Also all these lefties having complete faith in the integrity of *check* honest Joe Biden and the DNC is hilarious.
So in other words - yes, you think he won and it was stolen, but you are still too embarrassed to publicly admit it because you know it is nonsense.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 month ago
#90
(Original post by Drewski)
Why?
cUz TrUmP sEd!
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 month ago
#91
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
The 'coincidences' I mentioned above mainly. Eg Biden performing better than Obama in swing states but worse than Obama overall.
Er, Biden got 13 million more votes than Obama did overall. :confused:

I also watched it live and there was a three hour "break" that went on in some of these swing seats which seemed very odd at the time.
"3 hour break" in what? Surely time did not stop? :confused:
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 month ago
#92
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why did he lose 2020, then? 🤔
Trump hardly lost by a massive number of votes 51% to 47%.

as somebody else has pointed out on here. If Biden’s win was so successful, why wasn’t it a landslide?

The presidential elections are generally split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It tends to be two terms of one party, and two terms of the other.

Biden managed to scrape a win in the middle of a pandemic. Political leaders in pandemics aren’t going to do too well in times of social upheaval.

I suspect, irrespective of whoever is the republican nominee in 2024, they’ll beat the democrats as the after effects of the Covid pandemic will be associated with Biden’s presidency.
0
reply
Economixxx
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 month ago
#93
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Trump hardly lost by a massive number of votes 51% to 47%.

as somebody else has pointed out on here. If Biden’s win was so successful, why wasn’t it a landslide?
Consistent narrow margins of victory in American presidential elections are a recent trend, previously margins of 10% or 20% were common. In that context, Biden's popular vote margin of 4.45% is the second most comprehensive victory of the last six presidential elections. It may not have been a landslide, but it was not a marginal victory.

Biden managed to scrape a win in the middle of a pandemic. Political leaders in pandemics aren’t going to do too well in times of social upheaval.
If you look at opinion polls across the developed world during the pandemic, a clear pattern emerges: support for incumbent leaders and governments has increased markedly. Claiming political leaders aren't going to do well is at odds with reality.

You also display a particularly poor understanding of American politics. The history is clear: Americans are reluctant to vote out incumbent presidents, particularly in times of crisis.

I suspect, irrespective of whoever is the republican nominee in 2024, they’ll beat the democrats as the after effects of the Covid pandemic will be associated with Biden’s presidency.
In the same way that the after-effects of the 2008 financial crisis were associated with Obama? He cleaned up the mess the Republicans left and was rewarded with a second term. History has a habit of repeating itself.
2
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 month ago
#94
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Trump hardly lost by a massive number of votes 51% to 47%.

as somebody else has pointed out on here. If Biden’s win was so successful, why wasn’t it a landslide?
Because old-style landslides don't really happen any more. As a comparison, when Bill Clinton won in 1992 (like Biden, defeating an incumbent Republican who was running for a second term), he won the popular by about 5.5%, only one point more than Biden's 4.5% margin. Yet Clinton won by a significantly larger Electoral College margin, and his win was considered far more decisive. This was not particularly because Clinton won a lot of states by ultra-narrow margin and/or Biden lost a lot of states by tiny margins - had Clinton's national margin been a point smaller, it probably would have made a difference in 1 or 2 states at most, and had Biden's been a point larger, it likely would not have changed a single state, maybe North Carolina if he was lucky - it was simply because the states were more politically similar and less "sorted" than they are now. To give another comparison, in 1984, Reagan won the popular vote by just over 18 points, with his opponent Walter Mondale winning just one state and 13 Electoral Votes: if we scaled up Biden's win to the same margin, and assuming a uniform swing (i.e. if Biden won every state Trump won by a margin of less than 14%), Trump would still have won about 17 states and got over 100 Electoral Votes.

The political gulf between the reddest states and the bluest ones has grown considerably larger than it was 30-40 years ago, making it much harder to get a win perceived as comfortable and decisive.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 month ago
#95
(Original post by Economixxx)
Consistent narrow margins of victory in American presidential elections are a recent trend, previously margins of 10% or 20% were common. In that context, Biden's popular vote margin of 4.45% is the second most comprehensive victory of the last six presidential elections. It may not have been a landslide, but it was not a marginal victory.



If you look at opinion polls across the developed world during the pandemic, a clear pattern emerges: support for incumbent leaders and governments has increased markedly. Claiming political leaders aren't going to do well is at odds with reality.

You also display a particularly poor understanding of American politics. The history is clear: Americans are reluctant to vote out incumbent presidents, particularly in times of crisis.



In the same way that the after-effects of the 2008 financial crisis were associated with Obama? He cleaned up the mess the Republicans left and was rewarded with a second term. History has a habit of repeating itself.
Biden got no landslide. The days of landslide political changes in America stopped a generation ago. Those high numbers tend to only be when particularly charismatic independents like Ross Perot get involved and split the votes.

Obama got in off the back of the financial crisis as well as a deeply unpopular involvement in Iraq.

The impact to the pandemic isn’t going to be getting felt until later this year. Hopefully though it won’t be as bad as it could be.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 month ago
#96
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Trump hardly lost by a massive number of votes 51% to 47%.

as somebody else has pointed out on here. If Biden’s win was so successful, why wasn’t it a landslide?

The presidential elections are generally split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It tends to be two terms of one party, and two terms of the other.

Biden managed to scrape a win in the middle of a pandemic. Political leaders in pandemics aren’t going to do too well in times of social upheaval.

I suspect, irrespective of whoever is the republican nominee in 2024, they’ll beat the democrats as the after effects of the Covid pandemic will be associated with Biden’s presidency.
If the argument being made is, "Trump has shown that Trump can walk away from most "scandals"", then how massive a loss 2020 was for him doesn't really matter. The fact is that he did lose, so the question then becomes why. Do you support the argument that Trump can walk away from every scandal?

I'm not arguing that Biden's win was successful, I don't think it was anyway.

Political leaders doing not too well in pandemics? Opinion polls since last March don't entirely agree with that, if anything I'd argue the opposite.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 month ago
#97
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If the argument being made is, "Trump has shown that Trump can walk away from most "scandals"", then how massive a loss 2020 was for him doesn't really matter. The fact is that he did lose, so the question then becomes why. Do you support the argument that Trump can walk away from every scandal?

I'm not arguing that Biden's win was successful, I don't think it was anyway.

Political leaders doing not too well in pandemics? Opinion polls since last March don't entirely agree with that, if anything I'd argue the opposite.
I don’t support the argument that Trump can walk away from most scandals.

What I do see is a lot of mud slinging claiming scandals hoping people believe them.

Hunter Biden/ Trump water sports/ leave.UK financial irregularities etc etc etc.

US and to a lesser extent U.K. politics has become somewhat toxic.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 month ago
#98
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I don’t support the argument that Trump can walk away from most scandals.
I agree, which is why I think Trump lost 2020.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 month ago
#99
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Democracy is overrated (see Aristotle)
Compared to what? An aristocracy?
1
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 month ago
#100
(Original post by Ascend)
Compared to what? An aristocracy?
Exactly. I hold the Churchillian view on democracy
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (144)
4.88%
Uncertainty around my education (433)
14.68%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (332)
11.25%
Lack of purpose or motivation (409)
13.86%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (136)
4.61%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (178)
6.03%
Loneliness (254)
8.61%
Financial worries (109)
3.69%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (121)
4.1%
Exposure to negative news/social media (135)
4.58%
Lack of real life entertainment (158)
5.36%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (261)
8.85%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (280)
9.49%

Watched Threads

View All