A
"Letters to the editor" in traditional newspapers have rarely, if ever, enjoyed immunity as much as we've given more recently to postings on electronic social media like Facebook and Twitter.
it's not a matter of "taking away immunity" for social media. It's just recognizing that they are media just like newspapers and are not special at all when they publish harmful material.
My God, there are thousands of posts here. Do you really expect anybody to read an unknown response to someone else?
You do know this board puts an index number next to the post of yours you expect me to read, right? Maybe you could look up your own post and announce the number (if you're serious).
Stuffshot that's not how this medium works. The newspaper vets the article before its published. The newspaper is the publisher. Digital media like YouTube isn't reviewing anything in advance - they remove after the poster posts. Their immunity is by fed stat as a third party publisher
Ding ding ding.
That's the problem, isn't it?
Electronic social media don't vet their own content. Otherwise, there is no practical difference from traditional newspapers. They get to publish falsehoods endlessly.
The federal immunity is decidedly harmful.
I'm not sure. Should this website be liable for posts here? It's barely monitored. Defamatory info could be up for hours on here. Maybe there are members on here who are clients of stoll's but don't want anyone to know and as a result of a defamatory post on here about stoll they stop going to him. When stoll calls to find out why he missed his appointment the guy says bc of what I saw on the water cooler. Should this website be liable because that cavanaugh guy was passed out and failed to moderate the board and remove same in a timely fashion?
Well, those things would not even be considered as potential excuses if some associate editor of a newspaper let defamatory material slip into print. Harmful
defamation is still harmful defamation.
The New York Times decision and subsequent holdings do not excuse defamation in all cases, but people act like it does.
You wrote, "It's barely monitored. Defamatory info could be up for hours on here."
That's the problem. The fact that it's electronic defamation is no excuse for the defamation. It's not magic, omnipotent, truthful or infallible just because it's electronic.
And, a guy like Stoll could easily gain clients or lose clients by what Stoll himself or his critics post here ( assuming the poster "Stoll" is the real "Stoll").
The true question is whether electronic technology should be allowed to facilitate, permit and/or encourage the posting of defamatory comments, just because the technology makes it possible to overwhelm meaningful human vetting before the defamatory electrons are published. (Waaah. Waaah. It's too hard -- I just can't vet all this material).
I am not sympathetic to social media.
See @UncleMark better to quit while you’re ahead. Imagine being sued because of your WC moderation. Lol.
And in discovery we would could ascertain his relationship with Bulk
The only "relationship" I have with @Bulk VanderHuge is one of admiration. It's obvious to all he's a superior poster. I'd like to someday approach the quality of his work.
I bet we’d also learn that Mark is posting from the Hamptons in the summer and Park City in the winter. His trailer park act would be blown.
My "trailer park act" is a point of pride. The alternative was Section 8 or HUD housing.
Until a year ago he posted from DC, since it has been mar-a-lago.
Only the best posts, the most beautiful, perfect posts.
Rippin bodices while wielding the ban hammer. They’d sing songs about him.
And, the only "relationship" I have with @UncleMark is one of admiration. It's obvious to all he's a superior poster. I'd like to someday approach the quality of his work.
Americans' faith in election integrity drops: POLL
Only 20% of the public says it's very confident in the country's elections.abcnews.go.com
Dan Carlin said this was a possibility in 2016 on his Common Sense podcast and that people he had talked to in the intelligence communities were worried that the Russians were trying to accomplish this via social media bots, etc. at that time.
Regardless of who caused this, though, it's very troublesome.
that poll was rigged.
why only 10% of people trust polls.
It may seem counterintuitive but now might be the time to make these bipartisan changes. The long held belief was that more voters was good for Ds and bad for Rs. However, 2020 showed us that increased turnout did not bear that thinking out. Rs did well everywhere except the boat anchor at the top of the ticket, and even he had a chance to win the EC. This thread shows that there are some pretty basic things most of us agree on.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You’re both right. Brad’s right in a utopia - people should be making intelligent and informed decisions. You’re right in that it’s a citizen’s duty to vote.
The problem with Brad’s opinion is that it’s fictional. The problem with your opinion is that all it does is ramp up further incentives to misinform the public - not that it isn’t happening already.
I cannot think of any test we could apply that would be meaningful and not be prone to suppress the vote of people we disagree with.
Knowing Jefferson was Washington's Sec of State means nothing on policy. One can have no clue on real world issues but know trivia.
I am sure many conservatives would love a question of "how do we balance the budget" and "reduce spending" as the only answer while a liberal might demand "raise taxes" as the only answer.
So we have no good options but one person one vote.
"One person one vote" sounds good...did you mean a live person? The dead have probably swayed a few elections. At least I heard they have in Texas.
That just screws state budgets. If the dead are voting we are going to have to pay prison guards a whole lot more. They are not going to guard the dead for what they make.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Why do you believe a better result comes from more people voting? Do you think everyone voting leads to better candidates being selected? Better policies?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don't understand what's fictional or utopian about my opinion. I never said it was possible to have everyone making intelligent and informed decisions in a democracy; it's not. That's my point about democracy having weaknesses.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
As I said at the beginning of this, I have some sympathy for the idea. I'm not a diehard person on this point.
But I definitely think you could design a test to apply that would not be prone to suppress the vote of the people we disagree with. Don't we have a citizenship test right now that includes a civics portion? Use that or something like it. Or come up with one that you'd expect an 8th grader to pass. 10 questions that you fill out prior to voting, on the same ballot. If you get them right, your vote counts; if not, it does not.
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a Nixon Supreme Court nominee that was considered pretty average. In defense of him a Republican Senator suggested that average people deserve representation.
There is something to that. Everyone deserves representation, everyone. Harvard is already well represented. People who drop out of high school, as an example, do not lose their humanity. They too need represented.
That's different than knowing what is best for them, which is elitist to say. That any of us know what's best for each other. But many think the abolition of police is best for them. Many think whomever Taylor Swift endorses is best for them. Many think supporting a guy who perpetuates election fraud is best for them. Average needs representation - average may not vote for what's in their best interest because they are too stupid, to be blunt. So we can't fix stupid, and it's all pie in the sky stuff, but at least an informed electorate would be a significant improvement.
I'm with Brad. I don't want more voters. More informed voters sure, but not more representation of the dumbing down of America
Who's gonna decide where the stupid stops and the smart starts? Because I think a lot of your ideas are hella stupid and I'm quite certain you feel the same way about mine. 🤷♂️
Because I'm the firmest of believers that self-determination is extremely important for a healthy society and participation in setting the rules that govern society is a crucial part of that.
I've seen nothing to suggest that a smaller, more narrowly selected electorate will produce "better" candidates or policies.
California just redrew lines for the dems on steroids. This whole stand in line bs 30 years ago everyone stood in line. I once did a absentee when I was out of the country in 1996 and felt odd doing it Now its racist to demand vote in person. What utter bs.
We abhor lines everywhere else in our lives. How obnoxious does it feel to wait in a grocery line? Why should voting be different? I hate how voting is done currently. Seems like something from an era where people couldn't do math. But it's actually intentional to make voting hard, and then only the super dedicated go through with it. Nobody should ever be waiting 1-2 hours to vote, which is what happens in most every city.
I did absentee in my 2020 ballot....was great. It got delivered to my mailbox..I got to actually know who I was voting for on all the down ballot choices, as I had time to look up who they even fkn were.... then I dropped my ballot off at a collection site. Wtf is wrong with that?
Last edited:
Not stupid and ideas - informed voting. And it's impossible. Knowledge of what people are running on, how it all works, etc. I think with the advent of social media, the proliferation of misinformation, and the dumbing down of American we have too many uninformed and misinformed voters. Adding more isn't a good thing. Those who take the time to become informed are likely already voting.
Because there is absolutely no way whatsoever to prove who filled out the ballot or if there was illegal ballot harvesting. There's a reason the French outlawed mail in balloting. The French.
There is nothing wrong with that as long as the person ask for a ballot (don't just mail them out to registered voters) and the signature can be verified. I'm not sure how a signature is verified. I don't think the average person can always verify a signature but I assume that it's just the average Joe checking the signature on the ballot against a previous signature.
In the last election I personally know two people that got two ballots... not sure how that happened and I personally wouldn't know how to take advantage of it but if there's a way you can bet some people will.
And the date the ballot is due should be enforced strictly based on postmark.
On the postmark date, I'm with you on that, but I seem to recall last year a big hub bub over the postmark general taking out a bunch of sorting machines at locations and change to protocol with how mail was pickuped and change in hours as well.
Just seemed like everything was being done to sabotage the mail pickup.
Instead, how about applying some sort of criteria for people running for office? They are the ones making the decision to run. Don't know shit about the Constitution, politics, civics, economics, foreign policy, etc., as measured by a college-entrance level exam? You have to sit this one out, Sport. You could even differentiate the test based on the level (federal, state, local), and the location. Brad, you like standardized tests, and totally trust their results.
I mean, if you are going to trample on some voting rights, wouldn't it better to limit it to the people who seek to gain the most, as opposed to the millions of poor dumb schlubs like me who just want to participate in our civic duty in one of the few ways available to us? We can only serve on so many juries, you know.
Last edited:
What makes you think Miss Swift isn't some voting savant we should all listen to?
Newspapers have endorsed since the beginning of the Republic, when only White land-owning men could vote.
Same for politicians. Why should someone vote based on John Adams' opinion? But they did.
Let us look at who would probably tend to fail, the same places schools fail. Black cities and White Appalachia. Two areas that need help. Is there any chance they would get help if they could not vote? No for Gov, not for mayor, not for Senator, not for President? The good folks of Carmel would just vote in social welfare for billionaires paid for by a poverty tax.
There are people out there who know how many senators there are AND believe AGW is a Chinese hoax. They know how many votes it takes to override a veto and believe there are chips in vaccines. They can name the branches of government and believe 9/11 was an inside job. They can name the current president, speaker, house majority leader, and chief justice and believe the moon landings we're fake.
There is NO test for the type of stupidity we have.
