• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Eric Ciaramella is the [redacted]

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,673
545
I'm super pro-Business, probably more than most on GAF, but these people are making the case for regulation.
Businesses being able to run a free enterprise vs being part of the deep state are two different things. Political affiliation needs to be banned from every business, or at the very least, they state their bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: finowns

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,448
3,767
720
I don't get what the problem is.
So a whistleblower has been named <= this ain't good.
Some of the info on him, reveals he is very anti-Trump <= ain't good either.

Anyway, if someone wants to point out the latter, without being specific on his name, can't he/she do it anyway?

I have tried it. Facebook is indeed censoring the name. I put it on my feed and within 2 mins it was gone. This is a fucking disgrace and clearly election meddling!
Mixing in Cyrillic letters could help, perhaps:

а С е г Е
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,636
3,721
425
This guy stinks, and so does his attorney, who promised to impeach Trump back in 2017 right after he was inaugurated. Promised that a "coup" had formed. Can't wait to find out more information on this guy.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,523
6,289
1,560
I'm super pro-Business, probably more than most on GAF, but these people are making the case for regulation.
TBH, it is hard to take a full Libertarian stance with a lot of companies when you realize how intertwined they are with the government.

I would love to say that all these social media companies should be able to do whatever they want, but they are not really private companies that built themselves. They got aid from the IC and got special protections beyond the reach of normal citizens (Section 230). It is also clear that these investments were so that the government can use them as tools of information control. They were never part of a free market to begin with.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,542
14,659
840
I'm super pro-Business, probably more than most on GAF, but these people are making the case for regulation.
I generally dislike most regulation. It's too often written by the industry to actually protect the largest players from low level competition, or to enshrine questionable activity as legal within certain bounds.

But here we have big tech silencing voices, shaping news, determining wrongthink. And penalties can range from being banned from the digital public square to having bank accounts closed. All over political correctness and wrongthink.

A primary function of our government is to protect our rights. I think we've reached a point where they need protecting.

Worth noting, while many people hear 'freedom of the press' and think 'journalists', it is argued they actually meant 'freedom of the printing press', that is, freedom of communication technology [anyone could print whatever they chose]*. If that is the case, we are in a dilemma where big tech controls and throttles the modern printing press.

It's a difficult topic, but i would like to see social media companies operating in the US with a user base over X be required to recognize the 1st Amendment and relevant case law.

*https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802229
 
Last edited: