Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Political debate. Welcome Yahoo Message Board exiles and everybody else !!
User avatar
Evil
Somebody please hep me I been hypmotized
Posts: 49176
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:25 am

Re: Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Post by Evil » Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:30 pm

KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:28 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:23 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:18 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:12 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:11 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:37 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:33 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:20 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:15 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:46 pm


Which Senator is using his or her investigative powers to go after these media platforms? I can see how you wouldn't want to compare it to the baker. You've taken two different positions.
You try to simplify everything into black and white symbols. McCarthyism wasn’t just about a senator holding hearings. It was about a witch-hunt where people were blacklisted and had there free speech suppressed by their political enemies who used economic blackmail to silence and destroy them.
The baker case is about whether the government can force people to perform custom services that violate their religious beliefs.
Nope, it's an involved subject that you are leaving out a very important part of because with it your argument falls apart. Had McCarthy not been a Senator then none of it would have happened.
The House Un-American Activities Committee was around long before McCarthy held his hearings in the senate . People in Hollywood were getting blacklisted by the studios in 1947. McCarty was an opportunist who started to take advantage of the environment in 1950. The Army McCarthy hearings didn’t happen until 1954. They lead to his downfall.
It's called McCarthyism for a reason.
Yeah it is , but he didn’t invent the red scare or use those tactics first . He became the face of it when the media and the craven politicians decided to finally stand up to it. He was a bad person and an easy target .
Whether or not he was first is irrelevant to the point that he was a Senator using that position to scare people and falsely accuse people. For some reason you want to ignore that important fact.
I am not ignoring that at all.

You said

“ Had McCarthy not been a Senator then none of it would have happened.“

It was happening years before McCarthy took a leading role in it.
You didn't mention it so and you've argued against it's importance.

McCarthy took it to a level exponentially higher than anything that was going on before. He used his position as a Senator. The significance of that cannot be overstated.
Of course it can be overstated. The house was running hearings in 1947 and movie studios were blacklisting people back then. McCarthy became the face of it in the early 50s because of the popularity of TV . McCarthy was finally dealt with in 1955 because he took on the Army and the state department. They should have dealt with him sooner.

Anyway you did a nice job of rabbit holing .
Well I could have said anything and you would have rabbit holed it. It's what you do.
0 x
"Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." - Would-be-King Donny

User avatar
KC_
Rock Star
Posts: 13513
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Post by KC_ » Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:30 pm

Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:30 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:28 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:23 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:18 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:12 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:11 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:37 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:33 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:20 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:15 pm


You try to simplify everything into black and white symbols. McCarthyism wasn’t just about a senator holding hearings. It was about a witch-hunt where people were blacklisted and had there free speech suppressed by their political enemies who used economic blackmail to silence and destroy them.
The baker case is about whether the government can force people to perform custom services that violate their religious beliefs.
Nope, it's an involved subject that you are leaving out a very important part of because with it your argument falls apart. Had McCarthy not been a Senator then none of it would have happened.
The House Un-American Activities Committee was around long before McCarthy held his hearings in the senate . People in Hollywood were getting blacklisted by the studios in 1947. McCarty was an opportunist who started to take advantage of the environment in 1950. The Army McCarthy hearings didn’t happen until 1954. They lead to his downfall.
It's called McCarthyism for a reason.
Yeah it is , but he didn’t invent the red scare or use those tactics first . He became the face of it when the media and the craven politicians decided to finally stand up to it. He was a bad person and an easy target .
Whether or not he was first is irrelevant to the point that he was a Senator using that position to scare people and falsely accuse people. For some reason you want to ignore that important fact.
I am not ignoring that at all.

You said

“ Had McCarthy not been a Senator then none of it would have happened.“

It was happening years before McCarthy took a leading role in it.
You didn't mention it so and you've argued against it's importance.

McCarthy took it to a level exponentially higher than anything that was going on before. He used his position as a Senator. The significance of that cannot be overstated.
Of course it can be overstated. The house was running hearings in 1947 and movie studios were blacklisting people back then. McCarthy became the face of it in the early 50s because of the popularity of TV . McCarthy was finally dealt with in 1955 because he took on the Army and the state department. They should have dealt with him sooner.

Anyway you did a nice job of rabbit holing .
Well I could have said anything and you would have rabbit holed it. It's what you do.
No this one is on you . :lo2l:
0 x
”I'd rather die standing than live on my knees.”

Stephane Charbonnier

User avatar
Evil
Somebody please hep me I been hypmotized
Posts: 49176
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:25 am

Re: Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Post by Evil » Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:31 pm

KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:30 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:30 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:28 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:23 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:18 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:12 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:11 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:37 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:33 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:20 pm


Nope, it's an involved subject that you are leaving out a very important part of because with it your argument falls apart. Had McCarthy not been a Senator then none of it would have happened.
The House Un-American Activities Committee was around long before McCarthy held his hearings in the senate . People in Hollywood were getting blacklisted by the studios in 1947. McCarty was an opportunist who started to take advantage of the environment in 1950. The Army McCarthy hearings didn’t happen until 1954. They lead to his downfall.
It's called McCarthyism for a reason.
Yeah it is , but he didn’t invent the red scare or use those tactics first . He became the face of it when the media and the craven politicians decided to finally stand up to it. He was a bad person and an easy target .
Whether or not he was first is irrelevant to the point that he was a Senator using that position to scare people and falsely accuse people. For some reason you want to ignore that important fact.
I am not ignoring that at all.

You said

“ Had McCarthy not been a Senator then none of it would have happened.“

It was happening years before McCarthy took a leading role in it.
You didn't mention it so and you've argued against it's importance.

McCarthy took it to a level exponentially higher than anything that was going on before. He used his position as a Senator. The significance of that cannot be overstated.
Of course it can be overstated. The house was running hearings in 1947 and movie studios were blacklisting people back then. McCarthy became the face of it in the early 50s because of the popularity of TV . McCarthy was finally dealt with in 1955 because he took on the Army and the state department. They should have dealt with him sooner.

Anyway you did a nice job of rabbit holing .
Well I could have said anything and you would have rabbit holed it. It's what you do.
No this one is on you . :lo2l:
See?
0 x
"Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." - Would-be-King Donny

User avatar
nolaxride
Global Moderator
Posts: 25144
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Post by nolaxride » Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:34 pm

psk836 wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:19 pm
No.

They are determined to shut down conservative speech, and most importantly, to shut down Trump.

And no, they have not come right out and said so.
No one needs to shut down Trump. He's doing it himself. As for limiting conservative speech, FB has a ton of conservative groups, including Breitbart, OAN, The American Conservative, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, along with numerous conservative instigators.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-med ... s-n1188021
0 x
-- Oderint dum metuant

User avatar
nolaxride
Global Moderator
Posts: 25144
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Post by nolaxride » Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:39 pm

psk836 wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:33 pm
psk836 wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:23 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:13 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:07 pm
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:04 pm
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:58 am
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:54 am
Evil wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:51 am
KC_ wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:46 am
psk836 wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:40 am
Starting with Starbucks, followed by Coca Cola, Dockers and Levis and 90 others.

"In the week since a group of organizations have called on Facebook advertisers to pause their ad spending during the month of July, more than 90 marketers including Verizon, Patagonia, REI, Lending Club and The North Face have announced their intention to join, according to a running list from Sleeping Giants. The group of organizations includes the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color of Change, Free Press and Common Sense."
Ah the new black lists coming from the Democratic - Socialists and Marxist- Socialists. Liberty is in grave danger. They should rename the group Big Brother.
So halting ad spending is putting "liberty in grave danger," but refusing services to homosexuals is not? Spin in 3...2...1...
They are both about suppressing individual beliefs and forcing behavior. No one who loves liberty would support 3rd Party instigated blacklisting. It is the exact same odious behavior that happened during McCarthyism.
So now they must advertise on social media and the baker must serve the whole public? McCarthy was a Senator that falsely accused many people of being Communists and he used his position to initiate investigations into them. This is nothing like that.
People were black listed because they were on an arbitrary list created by an unaccountable 3rd Party who determined their guilt and pressured sponsors and corporations to black list them that’s what McCarthyism was and is. I get that you support it. As far as the baker goes no person should be forced to do custom work against their will.

It’s clear that you don’t really support liberty or free speech over your political agenda.
So then advertising, which is customized for the media it will be played on, falls within that position. So why are you against one and for the other?

You're intentionally leaving out what I mentioned regarding McCarthyism to fit your narrative. You should be honest about what it involved and its scope.
The situation is exactly the same as the 50s. The advertisers didn’t object to anything, it was a self appointed 3rd Party alliance that created an arbitrary blacklist of their political enemies and threatened these companies bottom line if they didn’t comply and pull their advertising. It is an odious way to stifle free speech.

It has nothing to do with the baker . Try sticking to the point at hand .
What we are witnessing is an adaptation of a common Lawfare practice. Hinderaker over at Powerlineblog explains it best.

"One of the most pernicious phenomena of modern times is the collusive lawsuit. This is how it works: a left-wing organization sues a government agency that is also controlled by the left. The lawsuit alleges that the agency is obliged to do something that the agency would like to do, but the Democrats can’t get it passed. Then the parties–supposedly adverse, but actually in collusion–“settle” the case by having the agency agree to do what it wanted to do all along. If all goes well, a court enters an order enforcing the settlement. So the net effect is that a policy that the Democrats couldn’t get passed is now a court-ordered mandate. This happens often."

You can see how this will apply to our current topic.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/fac ... index.html

"(CNN Business)Shares of both Facebook and Twitter were down more than 7% in mid-day trading Friday after Unilever said it would pull its advertising from the social media companies for the rest of the year."

Aw gee, now what do you suppose Facebook and Twitter will be "forced" to do?
ROTFLMAO... you have no idea. FB is a money machine. This boycott will have little impact on FB revenues. Note that everyone is boycotting FB, not Instagram, or WhatsApp. FB ads are sold via an auction system, so there's going to be no shortage of companies who will step in.
0 x
-- Oderint dum metuant

User avatar
Chester Cheesewright
Majesty
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:09 am

Re: Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Post by Chester Cheesewright » Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:54 pm

psk836 wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:40 am
Starting with Starbucks, followed by Coca Cola, Dockers and Levis and 90 others.

"In the week since a group of organizations have called on Facebook advertisers to pause their ad spending during the month of July, more than 90 marketers including Verizon, Patagonia, REI, Lending Club and The North Face have announced their intention to join, according to a running list from Sleeping Giants. The group of organizations includes the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color of Change, Free Press and Common Sense."
► Oh, what censorship?

Crazy old white wing coot.
0 x
And you know I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.” - -Donald Trump

antifa
Heir Apparent
Posts: 3030
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: Woke Large Corporations Boycotting Social Media Advertising To Force More Censorship

Post by antifa » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:27 pm

Mark Zuckerberg is at the very top right now and will remain to be a major influencer for years to come, but the world will be a different place in 10 or 15 years so the odds of FB staying relevant are slim to none.

Cocaine was part of pop culture for a very long time too but eventually most people moved on.
0 x

Post Reply