they went after definitely more than Alex Jones, who and what will be next? . . .

[Drewbot]

We may need a revision of the radio and TV broadcasters Equal-time rule or some similar rule to stop the large new media companies from unfairly discriminating against the candidate(s) they don't like.

No, there will be other media platforms that will take up the cause.

Alex Jones' own app is trending number 1 on Android, he doesn't NEED Youtube, I have no problem with media platforms restricting speech, as long as they don't masquerade as a platform that doesn't restrict free speech.

Twitter claims to allow all sides to speak and have a platform of ideas. If they banned Jones, then I would have a problem.

I don't think Youtube does.

Free speech is the tool with which we create our society.

Kooks from both sides shout loudly, and our society operates typically right down the middle with slight variation along the mean. If you take away some of the outliers from one side, you shift the mean. I say let the kooks talk and let society come to a reasonable middle.

 

[fagin]

Please try and learn the quote function - it's a simple button.

...

Please.

 

[rlopez2]

RE: Alex Jones' own app is trending number 1 on Android, he doesn't NEED Youtube, I have no problem with media platforms restricting speech, as long as they don't masquerade as a platform that doesn't restrict free speech.

Those folks should have known that what they were actually doing is giving Alex Jones more relevancy which may even extent to his friend. People will not only start listening to him more now, but they will be paying more attention to and find him more credible. I just hope it doesn't go as far as "Alex Jones for president", but things have gotten so out of hand from so many ends that even that is not such a crazy idea.

RE: Kooks from both sides shout loudly, and our society operates typically right down the middle with slight variation along the mean. If you take away some of the outliers from one side, you shift the mean. I say let the kooks talk and let society come to a reasonable middle.

Exactly! Let "we the people" talk, listen and be heard! Thank you.

 

[rlopez2]

RE: Please try and learn the quote function - it's a simple button.

You keep constantly asking to do that. Am I the only one here who doesn't?

I should admit why is it that I can't understand why you find so annoying that "I don't quote as any intelligent human being should" and I know that this will sound to you kind of crazy in an "Alex Jones" way, but:

1) I avoid protagonistic back-and-forths of any kind. I find ad hominem bs quite stupid. I like to always talk topically. Eleanor Roosevelt said something interesting about the kinds of people who concentrate on other people, incidents and ideas

2) USG is using AI to mess with certain kinds of people or I should better say: they are using certain kinds of people to train their AI (to the point of tormenting people into committing suicide)

3) something that they play their targets with is by "multiversing" them. You go to some place and see something, interact with whom you believe to be people (but are really AI bots or just all kinds of sockpuppetry at times using minimally turked computers), but only you can see that . . .

 

[rlopez2]

Right here you see a good example of why "codifying" language usage is virtually impossible. What seem to be robots, text parsers, ... have taken this thread from "USA Politics" into "Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories" even though I am not talking about about conspiracies or put in another way, any thing anyone says could be considered a "conspiracy" or "hate speech" ...

 

[beachnut]

...
The net neutrality thing has become an issue. Are they using Alex Jones as circus monkey for their show? What they did to him I found so stupid, that I can’t help but think it is part of a wider plan.

Exactly who are they? Exactly how does this fit into net neutrality?

1) I avoid protagonistic back-and-forths of any kind. I find ad hominem bs quite stupid. I like to always talk topically. Eleanor Roosevelt said something interesting about the kinds of people who concentrate on other people, incidents and ideas

2) USG is using AI to mess with certain kinds of people or I should better say: they are using certain kinds of people to train their AI (to the point of tormenting people into committing suicide)

3) something that they play their targets with is by "multiversing" them. You go to some place and see something, interact with whom you believe to be people (but are really AI bots or just all kinds of sockpuppetry at times using minimally turked computers), but only you can see that . . .

Do you know how to use the quote function? not yet

1 - yes, like clown stick, when he is in trouble, Obama did it, Clinton did it,

2 - USG is using What? lol, you mean AI, a computer program to do specific thing, or the AI code word to fool people as a marketing tool that computer can think? Oh, you got proof of a suicide? Was it Alex Jones?

3 - paranoia is this

poor alex jones, kicked from private venues - FF (oops, my ai bot is showing)

 

[Axxman300]

It would have to be one heck of a revision. The original was predicated on the (somewhat shaky) premise that the government owned the airwaves. In order to rent a bandwidth from them, the radio or TV station had to agree to abide by FCC regulation and other laws.

But we now have a forty year history of cables, satellites, towers, fiber optics, etc. that have never been thought to be "owned" by the feds. It'd take some doing to get them under that sort of government control.

And seeing as how the current administration dismantled net neutrality, I don't believe that the fed is going to change its mind now.

The idea of the equal-time rule was to make sure that the news outlets made the effort to present a balanced story. The problem is that it devolved into a scenario where every crackpot with an opinion gets air time.

I can't take credit for this idea, but it goes something like this:

If someone says it's raining, reporters should first LOOK OUT THE WINDOW before quoting someone who says it is not raining.

On the other hand, there was a tree frog in my shower this morning so maybe Jones was right about chemtrails turning frogs gay

 

[rlopez2]

RE: Exactly who are they?

The Munchkins. They are up to something lately and they will come after you too anyway regardless. I heard they have been learning some AI stuff as well and are on a mission from Vladimir Putin, so get ready while you can.

RE: Exactly how does this fit into net neutrality?

OK, I have a more interesting question for you: provided that is the case, regardless of how self righteous you are about being so close to the Universe’ very rear end, since when it is someone else's responsibility to deal with one’s own shortsightedness even if he dresses it in ad hominem cr@p and arrogance?

 

[dudalb]

Well, I'll put aside for the moment the distinction between "government" and "private business" to make another point.

Alex Jones is really closer to Goebbels than any group listed in the poem. You know, the intolerant, violence-formenting conspiracy peddler that has the favor of the also intolerant government authority, and that the poem was warning you would wreak havoc if allowed to run wild. The guy's even a pretty obvious antisemite.

.

That is unfair to Goebbels. Goebbels was a lot more competent then Jones ever was.

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

RE: Exactly how does this fit into net neutrality?

OK, I have a more interesting question for you: provided that is the case, regardless of how self righteous you are about being so close to the Universe’ very rear end, since when it is someone else's responsibility to deal with one’s own shortsightedness even if he dresses it in ad hominem cr@p and arrogance?

Can you answer the question please, not bluster.

Perhaps you’re not trolling at this point, but failing to answer it and instead providing a word salad doesn’t help your case.

 

[beachnut]

RE: Exactly who are they?

The Munchkins. They are up to something lately and they will come after you too anyway regardless. I heard they have been learning some AI stuff as well and are on a mission from Vladimir Putin, so get ready while you can.

RE: Exactly how does this fit into net neutrality?

OK, I have a more interesting question for you: provided that is the case, regardless of how self righteous you are about being so close to the Universe’ very rear end, since when it is someone else's responsibility to deal with one’s own shortsightedness even if he dresses it in ad hominem cr@p and arrogance?

They, your 'they', are fantasy beings. I used that a lot when I was three, "mom, they did it, not I".

No clue how it fits net neutrality. Why not say, no clue? You could have said now Comcast can throttle traffice to Alex Jones web site of woo since NN has been overturned (or what ever state it is in now).

As for AI, it remains a marketing gimmick, and remains a computer program. oops, they cut off my phone, and stopped my internet, they are targeting me again; run - (wife said mow the lawn, and she shut off the AI bot, aka the router and modem - darn, she alex jonesed me)

 

[BStrong]

incoherent material snipped to focus on even more incoherent material

OK, I have a more interesting question for you: provided that is the case, regardless of how self righteous you are about being so close to the Universe’ very rear end, since when it is someone else's responsibility to deal with one’s own shortsightedness even if he dresses it in ad hominem cr@p and arrogance?

1. - No, you don't.

2. You describe your posts perfectly. What will be your solution to your own shortcomings in communication skills and rational thought?

 

[Elagabalus]

Right here you see a good example of why "codifying" language usage is virtually impossible. What seem to be robots, text parsers, ... have taken this thread from "USA Politics" into "Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories" even though I am not talking about about conspiracies or put in another way, any thing anyone says could be considered a "conspiracy" or "hate speech" ...

That's what we wanted you to think.

 

[Loss Leader]

What I mean is that they are one and the same thing anyway. In the 90's (after the technological and societal adoption of the Internet) "we the people" stopped being the ones being offered products and services and became the products and services to be offered. Both business and politicians benefit from that.

I think you'll find advertisements going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. The idea of selling viewers to advertisers is thousands of years old.

just look at the board of those institutions and you will see they are all CIA, FBI, ... it didn't use to be that way. That is a falsifiable trend anyone can check. Why does Coca-Cola care about PETA activists? Why is amazon involved in widespread none consensual experimentation of the homeless population in Seattle? ...

The Board of Directors of Facebook - nobody from the FBI or CIA.

The Board of Directors of Coca-Cola - nobody from the FBI or CIA

The Board of Directors of Amazon - nobody from the FBI or CIA.

The Board of Directors of Alphabet, Inc. (parent of Google and YouTube) - nobody from the FBI or CIA.


So, exactly where should I look? The highest ranked former government official is Erskine Bowles, who was Clinton's Chief of Staff. He's been out of government service for twenty years, and, even then, he served in a Democratic administration.

 

[Jim_MDP]

...

So, exactly where should I look? The highest ranked former government official ...

I think I see your mistake...
You're looking for the insidious gov't spies and masters of mind control that you can see.
You need to look for the ones that only Senor Lopez can see, which... uh, you can not.

Okay... there may be a flaw in this plan.

 

[rlopez2]

RE: I think you'll find advertisements going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. The idea of selling viewers to advertisers is thousands of years old.

Actually advertisements anywhere close to the idea we have of it today are a relatively new idea. Surely, it didn't, couldn't make any sense before the invention of the printing press. Sure you could let your neighbor know you got some extra limes and are selling lemonade, but from where did you get that "going all the way back to the ancient Greeks" phrase? It certainly sound catchy, but, does it make sense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_advertising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising
~
RE: The Board of Directors of:
RE: https://investor.fb.com/corporate-governance/default.aspx
RE: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/board-of-directors
RE: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-govmanage
RE: https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/company-officers/GOOG.O
RE: nobody from the FBI or CIA. So, exactly where should I look?

To me the FBI, CIA, NSA, ... are one and the same thing once the U.S. became a police state, but apparently I should have explicitly included "NSA" before my ellipsis. Also, you got me on language usage (the word "board") but I used that word in a certain context, meaning that there is not difference whatsoever, between politicians, business people, akademia, ... they are all in bed and in such a promiscuous way that it is hard at this point to tell who is who and who is doing what anyway and it is at times even hard trying to figure out why: for example, why did amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos' start messing with programs helping homeless people in Seattle? I wonder from where does he/his company even find time to worry about such matters. What is the point anyway in doing that? (other than satisfying their psychopathy, sadism)

http://www.google.com/search?q=Jeff+Bezos+amazon+homeless


Here are some links of other places you could look into giving you more (and truer I would say) insight about those companies which boards you offered links to and, please, don’t let all those links for you to look into overwhelm you. You could just answer one (1) single question? Why is it exactly that the APA includes high ranking CIA officials? (hint: they are not working as therapists for the government)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

if you tell me that you believe the public statements of the same companies you used as example, then we simply don’t understand each other on basic issues

AFAIK, there were only three (3) U.S. IT companies who said NO to the government and/or didn’t say “Yes, sir!” fast enough, 2 of which went bust.
~
// __ Coca Cola Hired Spy Firm Stratfor to Investigate PETA

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/coca-cola-hired-spy-firm-stratfor-to-investigate-peta/5791/
~
// __ Secrets, lies and Snowden's email: why I was forced to shut down Lavabit

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email
~
// __ Before Edward Snowden, There Was Joseph Nacchio

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/before-edward-snowden-there-was-joseph-nacchio/
~
// __ Bill Gates: I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn’t characterize him as a hero.

Q: Thanks to Edward Snowden, who has leaked tens of thousands of NSA documents, we are. Do you consider him a hero or a traitor?

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-111915/
~
by the way that Bill Gates is the same one that selling OS with backdoors to the NSA since the 1990's to billions of people around the world and when some technical people blew the whistle and tried to explain those issues, they were deemed "crazies" and their claims as "conspiracy theories"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY
~
// __ 14 cutting edge firms funded by the CIA

https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-funded-by-cia-2016-9
~
// __ site:theguardian.com APA American Psychiatric CIA

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:theguardian.com+APA+American+Psychiatric+CIA
~
// __ site:theintercept.com APA American Psychiatric CIA

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:theintercept.com+APA+American+Psychiatric+CIA
~

 

[rlopez2]

RE: The idea of selling viewers to advertisers . . .

I still think you don't get the main idea that I am trying to convey. I am not talking about "viewers", "prospective buyers". What I am talking about is in the 1990's technology turned "me and you" into the products to be sold to businesses. Those who see that difference may say that it doesn't matter much, that it is unavoidable, "just" a consequence of "technological progress" , so morality should not be involved in this, . . . I don't think so.

 

[fagin]

RE: Please try and learn the quote function - it's a simple button.

You keep constantly asking to do that. Am I the only one here who doesn't? I should admit why is it that I can't understand why you find so annoying that "I don't quote as any intelligent human being should" and I know that this will sound to you kind of crazy in an "Alex Jones" way, but:

1) I avoid protagonistic back-and-forths of any kind. I find ad hominem bs quite stupid. I like to always talk topically. Eleanor Roosevelt said something interesting about the kinds of people who concentrate on other people, incidents and ideas

2) USG is using AI to mess with certain kinds of people or I should better say: they are using certain kinds of people to train their AI (to the point of tormenting people into committing suicide)

3) something that they play their targets with is by "multiversing" them. You go to some place and see something, interact with whom you believe to be people (but are really AI bots or just all kinds of sockpuppetry at times using minimally turked computers), but only you can see that . . .

Yes, look around you. It's hard enough to make sense of incoherent rambling without trying to parse out what is a response to what.

I'm sure the USG's AI is not particularly interested in a tiny obscure forum.

Or perhaps I am a sneaky bot trying to mess with you?

Welcome to the Matrix.

Etc.

 

[fromdownunder]

RE: The idea of selling viewers to advertisers . . .

I still think you don't get the main idea that I am trying to convey. I am not talking about "viewers", "prospective buyers". What I am talking about is in the 1990's technology turned "me and you" into the products to be sold to businesses. Those who see that difference may say that it doesn't matter much, that it is unavoidable, "just" a consequence of "technological progress" , so morality should not be involved in this, . . . I don't think so.

I am trying to understand your aversion to posting:

The idea of selling viewers to advertisers . . .

and instead posting:



RE: The idea of selling viewers to advertisers . . .


It is exactly the same thing as using the quote button, but far less confusing to other readers.

Do you have a problem in actually finding the quote button?


Norm

 

[ddt]

I am trying to understand your aversion to posting:


and instead posting:



RE: The idea of selling viewers to advertisers . . .


It is exactly the same thing as using the quote button, but far less confusing to other readers.

Do you have a problem in actually finding the quote button?


Norm

Don't you know that the quote button sends a message to the CIA and the NSA, so they can track what rlopez is doing and what nefarious plots of them he's revealing?

<sarcasm off>

I'm back to lurking mode.