Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

nan said:
Right, as I said, they start with the worst examples like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook deniers.  Then they move on and on.  In the Real New video I posted above, a page called Venezuela Analysis was taken down.  They were providing non-establishment views about that country during a political crisis.  

FB did not just "start" with Alex Jones and others. They've struggled with what leave and what to take down for years. You are imagining a continuum where there is none. (You said yourself that you wouldn't "allow" such talk from Jones, so it's even harder than usual to understand your point.)

dave said:
It's not an obvious joke.   It's not obviously satirical.   It's moronic.

 What was the joke (or "joke")?  I started to watch the video, but the host was rambling about someone else first, and trying to criticize her without even bothering provide direct quotes of what he was criticizing.  I stopped watching, because it seemed like he'd take forever to get to the point and even then I wasn't sure he'd be clear about what he was complaining about.

dave23 said:

nan said:
Right, as I said, they start with the worst examples like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook deniers.  Then they move on and on.  In the Real New video I posted above, a page called Venezuela Analysis was taken down.  They were providing non-establishment views about that country during a political crisis.  

FB did not just "start" with Alex Jones and others. They've struggled with what leave and what to take down for years. You are imagining a continuum where there is none. (You said yourself that you wouldn't "allow" such talk from Jones, so it's even harder than usual to understand your point.)

And fear of a slippery slope begs the alternative: absolutism. Nan, you sound like an absolutist on free speech, or close to it. You’ve also expressed, on numerous occasions, sensitivity to what you consider personal attacks here on MOL. How do you balance those two inclinations?

nan said:

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:


Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.

Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC.  They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda.  Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war.  They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive.  I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not.  Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences.  So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.  

Greenwald hates the Democrats. He's not there to counter conservative experts.  He's there to give FOX some legitimacy among FOX critics.

He's not there to support any party.  He is there to talk truthfully, using facts and analysis, about current events.  While drummerboy, in his post above, says FOX should be censored like Alex Jones, he would probably like it if no one would hear the excellent segment below.  Cause you will not hear this on CNN or MSNBC and you should (cause it shows the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans).  And before you start saying I like FOX News--I don't like FOX, CNN or MSNBC, but even a broken clock is right twice a day--and sometimes MSM does real journalism as in the clip below:

 Greenwald is very biased.  I can't take anything he says at face value anymore.

DaveSchmidt said:

dave23 said:

nan said:
Right, as I said, they start with the worst examples like Alex Jones and Sandy Hook deniers.  Then they move on and on.  In the Real New video I posted above, a page called Venezuela Analysis was taken down.  They were providing non-establishment views about that country during a political crisis.  

FB did not just "start" with Alex Jones and others. They've struggled with what leave and what to take down for years. You are imagining a continuum where there is none. (You said yourself that you wouldn't "allow" such talk from Jones, so it's even harder than usual to understand your point.)

And fear of a slippery slope begs the alternative: absolutism. Nan, you sound like an absolutist on free speech, or close to it. You’ve also expressed, on numerous occasions, sensitivity to what you consider personal attacks here on MOL. How do you balance those two inclinations?

 If you read what I actually said, you will see that I said hate speech and libel and anything illegal should be removed.  But, I don't think whole groups or people should be banned unless it can shown that that is all they do.  On MOL, there used to be a policy whereby personal attacks get you banned.  That is --calling someone directly a name, not saying they were acting like something bad. Clearly that is not in place anymore. But, they can do what they want. It makes sense to ban personal attacks if you want to have good discussions, cause that's what trolls want to interupt.  

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:


Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.

Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC.  They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda.  Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war.  They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive.  I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not.  Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences.  So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.  

Greenwald hates the Democrats. He's not there to counter conservative experts.  He's there to give FOX some legitimacy among FOX critics.

He's not there to support any party.  He is there to talk truthfully, using facts and analysis, about current events.  While drummerboy, in his post above, says FOX should be censored like Alex Jones, he would probably like it if no one would hear the excellent segment below.  Cause you will not hear this on CNN or MSNBC and you should (cause it shows the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans).  And before you start saying I like FOX News--I don't like FOX, CNN or MSNBC, but even a broken clock is right twice a day--and sometimes MSM does real journalism as in the clip below:

 Greenwald is very biased.  I can't take anything he says at face value anymore.

They are asking him for his opinion, not asking him to be objective, He's speaking very factually about the massive surveillance on ordinary citizens.  This is an area Greenwald has spent a lot of time covering. He's right to be alarmed.  More people should be alarmed.   The question being asked is "When is it acceptable to spy on US Citizens?"  It seems people may be getting used to routinely being monitored like "Big Brother."  Carlson also points out that Republicans, who complain about Democrats, voted to keep this in place. Fox news criticism on Republicans are a positive thing, don't you think? Greenwald points out that the Democrats also signed on, which is a fact.  Carlson asks when he asks why is spying on ordinary people so rarely debated? Greenwald points out that Edward Snowden revealed that this massive surveillance was being put together in secret (a fact). Greenwald points out that both parties, despite what they say, approve measures that would approve all spying powers and "block all safeguards on how it is used."  Greenwald also raises alarms about procedures in the FISA courts.  Do you really want to silence discussions like this?  

nan said:

If you read what I actually said, you will see that I said hate speech and libel and anything illegal should be removed.  But, I don't think whole groups or people should be banned unless it can shown that that is all they do.  

 What's the magic ratio?  How much of a percentage of hate speech and libel would keep someone safe?  How much is too much?  If they keep doing it, even when warned (Alex Jones can't say he's not been warned) should a private company be able to say, "Sorry, you can't use our platform any more"?

nan said:

 If you read what I actually said, you will see that I said hate speech and libel and anything illegal should be removed.  But, I don't think whole groups or people should be banned unless it can shown that that is all they do.  On MOL, there used to be a policy whereby personal attacks get you banned.  That is --calling someone directly a name, not saying they were acting like something bad. Clearly that is not in place anymore. But, they can do what they want. It makes sense to ban personal attacks if you want to have good discussions, cause that's what trolls want to interupt.  

Thanks. I’ve been reading what you actually say, but, like dave23, I had some difficulty understanding where you drew lines. It’s encouraging to see that libel is no longer just a made-up excuse and that there are legal distinctions to be made.

How bans for personal attacks can avoid the slippery slope argument is another question, but I’m happy to move on.

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:


Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.

Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC.  They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda.  Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war.  They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive.  I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not.  Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences.  So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.  

Greenwald hates the Democrats. He's not there to counter conservative experts.  He's there to give FOX some legitimacy among FOX critics.

He's not there to support any party.  He is there to talk truthfully, using facts and analysis, about current events.  While drummerboy, in his post above, says FOX should be censored like Alex Jones, he would probably like it if no one would hear the excellent segment below.  Cause you will not hear this on CNN or MSNBC and you should (cause it shows the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans).  And before you start saying I like FOX News--I don't like FOX, CNN or MSNBC, but even a broken clock is right twice a day--and sometimes MSM does real journalism as in the clip below:

 Greenwald is very biased.  I can't take anything he says at face value anymore.

 You shouldn't take anything he says at face value. But it's interesting that Greenwald critics never give specific examples of what he's said that they find objectionable.

IMHO, Youtube and Facebook have monopoly powers with respect to video clips and social media.  Frequently, monopolies act against the interests of the consumer and the populace in general.  Neither, social media nor video clips appear to fall into the category of "natural monopolies."  Perhaps, Youtube and Facebook should be broken up in order to protect the public from their monopoly powers.  See https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/25/why-breaking-up-amazon-google-apple-and-facebook-could-save-capitalism/

What prevents competition with Youtube or Facebook?

Are they acting in restraint of trade.

I really don't know. Can you explain?

I read the linked article quickly. I am not very tech savvy but I seem to remember when AOL was just about the only game in town with respect to the internet.

paulsurovell said:

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:


Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.

Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC.  They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda.  Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war.  They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive.  I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not.  Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences.  So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.  

Greenwald hates the Democrats. He's not there to counter conservative experts.  He's there to give FOX some legitimacy among FOX critics.

He's not there to support any party.  He is there to talk truthfully, using facts and analysis, about current events.  While drummerboy, in his post above, says FOX should be censored like Alex Jones, he would probably like it if no one would hear the excellent segment below.  Cause you will not hear this on CNN or MSNBC and you should (cause it shows the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans).  And before you start saying I like FOX News--I don't like FOX, CNN or MSNBC, but even a broken clock is right twice a day--and sometimes MSM does real journalism as in the clip below:

 Greenwald is very biased.  I can't take anything he says at face value anymore.

 You shouldn't take anything he says at face value. But it's interesting that Greenwald critics never give specific examples of what he's said that they find objectionable.

 Read any column of his related to Hillary Clinton and/or the Democrats from the past few years.

RealityForAll said:
IMHO, Youtube and Facebook have monopoly powers with respect to video clips and social media.  Frequently, monopolies act against the interests of the consumer and the populace in general.  Neither, social media nor video clips appear to fall into the category of "natural monopolies."  Perhaps, Youtube and Facebook should be broken up in order to protect the public from their monopoly powers.  See https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/25/why-breaking-up-amazon-google-apple-and-facebook-could-save-capitalism/

 Perhaps this needs its own thread. We may shortly be reminded that this conversation is about Mr. Assange.

Thanks all for the reminder of why I no longer spend much time on MOL.

yahooyahoo said:

paulsurovell said:

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:


Get rid of Fox News while we're at it too.

Fox News is the same as CNN and MSNBC.  They are just different flavors of the same corporate propaganda.  Be careful what you wish for, although those sites will never come down, as they already conform to manufactured consent regulations. They mostly ignore real problems and focus on Russiagate or immigrants or whatever else not related to wealth inequality or a negative view of war.  They are not as different as you think. They are filled with ex-generals and ex-CIA talking head experts (the establishment, or CIA)--like John Brennan. No one on the left should admire John Brennon and I've seen him quoted on MOL as a voice of reason by people who think of themselves as progressive.  I know you probably think of CNN and MSNBC as "the Resistance" but it's not.  Fox news, because they hate liberals so much, will bring in real progressive voices such as Glen Greenwald and Garland Nixon to counter their conservative experts and the discussions are much better when they do that because of the strong differences.  So, sometimes FOX is better than MSNBC or CNN, because those outlets almost never allow real Progressives on. But, no one should listen to FOX, MSNBC or CNN as their only source of news.  

Greenwald hates the Democrats. He's not there to counter conservative experts.  He's there to give FOX some legitimacy among FOX critics.

He's not there to support any party.  He is there to talk truthfully, using facts and analysis, about current events.  While drummerboy, in his post above, says FOX should be censored like Alex Jones, he would probably like it if no one would hear the excellent segment below.  Cause you will not hear this on CNN or MSNBC and you should (cause it shows the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans).  And before you start saying I like FOX News--I don't like FOX, CNN or MSNBC, but even a broken clock is right twice a day--and sometimes MSM does real journalism as in the clip below:

 Greenwald is very biased.  I can't take anything he says at face value anymore.

 You shouldn't take anything he says at face value. But it's interesting that Greenwald critics never give specific examples of what he's said that they find objectionable.

 Read any column of his related to Hillary Clinton and/or the Democrats from the past few years.

 You just confirmed my point.

TeleSUR English Facebook page restored after massive protests by free speech activists. No explanation of why it was taken down.

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/After-Large-Solidarity-teleSUR-English-Facebook-Page-Restored-20180815-0008.html

paulsurovell said:
TeleSUR English Facebook page restored after massive protests by free speech activists. No explanation of why it was taken down.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/After-Large-Solidarity-teleSUR-English-Facebook-Page-Restored-20180815-0008.html

Decisions to remove content are usually made by very low-level employees who are guided by little more than a policy booklet. People imagine Mark Zuckerberg roaming the halls yelling orders when in fact it's a 22-year-old in Mumbai.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
TeleSUR English Facebook page restored after massive protests by free speech activists. No explanation of why it was taken down.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/After-Large-Solidarity-teleSUR-English-Facebook-Page-Restored-20180815-0008.html

Decisions to remove content are usually made by very low-level employees who are guided by little more than a policy booklet. People imagine Mark Zuckerberg roaming the halls yelling orders when in fact it's a 22-year-old in Mumbai.

 https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
If you read what I actually said, you will see that I said hate speech and libel and anything illegal should be removed.  But, I don't think whole groups or people should be banned unless it can shown that that is all they do.  

 What's the magic ratio?  How much of a percentage of hate speech and libel would keep someone safe?  How much is too much?  If they keep doing it, even when warned (Alex Jones can't say he's not been warned) should a private company be able to say, "Sorry, you can't use our platform any more"?

 No hate speech, inciting violence.  Why should there be a percentage?  But, hate speech needs to be clearly defined. I'm not sure what should be done, but I don't celebrate the horrible Alex Jones being banned cause it is a slippery slope and it has already been abused and good sites have been brought down.  

mfpark said:
Thanks all for the reminder of why I no longer spend much time on MOL.

I’ve noticed, and it’s regrettable.

mfpark said:
Thanks all for the reminder of why I no longer spend much time on MOL.

 Not sure why you say that.  We are talking about Julian Assange and the related topic of censorship.  There is some troll-like behavior, but most people are just talking about the topic(s).

I think the Paul and nan threads should all be in the sub forum.  I’ll try to come up with a solution.  

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
TeleSUR English Facebook page restored after massive protests by free speech activists. No explanation of why it was taken down.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/After-Large-Solidarity-teleSUR-English-Facebook-Page-Restored-20180815-0008.html

Decisions to remove content are usually made by very low-level employees who are guided by little more than a policy booklet. People imagine Mark Zuckerberg roaming the halls yelling orders when in fact it's a 22-year-old in Mumbai.

 https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/

 Yes, Greenwald just issued a passionate defense of Jeremy Corbyn's anti-Semitism. 

But it's true that Facebook sometimes takes content down at the urging of governments, such as Holocaust denial posts from Germany.

jamie said:
I think the Paul and nan threads should all be in the sub forum.  I’ll try to come up with a solution.  

 Yes please.

really great idea 

jamie said:
I think the Paul and nan threads should all be in the sub forum.  I’ll try to come up with a solution.  

 A solution?  Why does this thread need a solution?  Why is it different than any other thread? 

please respect the fact that the owner of this platform is making a decision in the interest of his online community and sponsors 

sbenois said:
please respect the fact that the owner of this platform is making a decision in the interest of his online community and sponsors 

Yes, it is his decision who to censor.  When they pulled Paul's thread, I left for a long time.  If they pull this one, I will do the same.  I'm not going to fight with the owner of my local message board,  I will find some other place to discuss ideas.  

nan said:

jamie said:
I think the Paul and nan threads should all be in the sub forum.  I’ll try to come up with a solution.  

 A solution?  Why does this thread need a solution?  Why is it different than any other thread? 

 Because the deep state called us and requested it.  It's out of our hands.  I'm sure you'll understand.

dave said:

nan said:

jamie said:
I think the Paul and nan threads should all be in the sub forum.  I’ll try to come up with a solution.  

 A solution?  Why does this thread need a solution?  Why is it different than any other thread? 

 Because the deep state called us and requested it.  It's out of our hands.  I'm sure you'll understand.

 I will understand. More than you know.