Elliott Management buys stake in Twitter and seeks to oust Jack Dorsey

I think looking up why #OkDude was trending in the last few days would give you one example.

Official policies are strongly influenced by prevailing Leftist dogma as well. Questioning whether gender dysphoria (transgenderism) can be considered mental illness would be considered ban worthy on Twitter, in spite of evidence that many cases of transgenderism are either an example of herd following or some sort of dysphoric personally disorder.

If you can go to your kids school events and it doesn't impact your work (or happiness or makes you happy for that matter) in some way (and your ability to provide for your child's future (key point)) then that is your choice. But this idea (that goes around in today's popular culture) that it's vital in some way that both parents (man or woman) need and should be fully engaged in a child's school activities is simply not right both from my experience and observation over the years (with my own children (grown up, educated and well employed)) and history as well. It's a concept that is bandied about as being good not only w/o proof but absolute.

So my question for you is did you think about this and come to the conclusion that you should attend your kid's school events on your own or is it something you have read in many places and never questioned because 'it's what you do as a parent and it is important'.

Let's take it one step further. Men and women go off to war 'for their country'. They are not able to even be with their children (let alone attend events). It's service for your country that's what you sign up for. Do you think that the job of the President is less involved and important than a single soldier or more? Don't you think his thought process should be on the country and what's good for them and not his (for this particular case) his children?

One last thing. If Obama really cared about his kids he wouldn't have become President. There is nothing normal about being the child of a President. Given both his education and level of achievement and his wife's his children would have had a very nice life going forward w/o needing the drawbacks (both attention and security wise) of being the child of a President. (Not questioning the coolness or upside just saying there is plenty of risk and downside I mean talk about a not normal life even people you meet are most likely angling and want to be around you because of who your parents were and are).

> Being president is just another job, albeit far more high profile.

Just another job? More high profile? You are joking right?

That's a judgement based on the idea that going to a kids meeting is a 'good' thing and nobody should question it.

Let's say Obama in his first few weeks decided to walk to a house on the street (with secret service) and do some gardening for someone (without any benefit otherwise as an isolated event) most would probably think that was not only a waste of time but that he had some ulterior motive for doing that. I mean Presidents are well known for blowing off steam by golfing but they aren't going to golf in the first week etc. Sends the wrong message.

Ditto if someone hired a CEO for the company and they spent time on some trivial relaxation time event (and the company was bleeding money) it would be seen as a bad use of time they should be focused.

Go further with this. A company has been hacked and 'all hands on deck'. But the key person well he's off at a school meeting which could either be postponed or perhaps the spouse could handle.

I don't even agree with the idea that they have an issue staying fresh mentally in the sense that that activity would even be the thing to do to do that. (Better to get more sleep and cut out needless meetings etc).

If you ask any presidential candidate about the chances of their platform passing as-is, they will all have the same three things to tell you: 1) Vote for members of congress who will support my agenda and this won't be a problem; 2) Give me a mandate to implement my agenda so I have more political capital for negotiations; 3) You need to plant a flag in the ground so that you have something to anchor negotiations later, which might involve compromises.

If your point is that voters, the media, and politicians spend way too much time on platforms when they are mostly just signalling devices, I agree.

You can do better than such a low effort swipe.

The question is, what are we going to do about it? If we keep ignoring the condition of the working class for too long like in this country, you get Trump and the likes.

It's an enormous failure of our political class to have ignored real issues for so long, getting it to the point where pretty much the same thing is happening all around the world, and the plutocrats and billionaires are exploiting it because they can since they have all the power.

Not even a new thing, Rage Against The Machine wrote songs about all of this 20 years ago, it's just that most people weren't paying attention.

I would like to raise to your awareness that when Bernie was accused of saying a woman couldn't be president, his talking point we're very close to what people on the right have been saying for years.

You're saying that you want the media to be a political instrument, but you want to make sure it's a political instrument used only by the party you prefer?

Because the alternative wouldn't be "it should be used by both sides", the alternative would be "it shouldn't be a political instrument".

1. It's authoritarian because it hurts the free press.

2. It hurts the free press because it's Turkey doing it.

3. Turkey is doing it because they are authoritarian.

And looking from the outside, I can't see a difference. The Western media, who are funded by the Western governments, praise the Western governments for their support of freedom and democracy.

The third world media, who are funded by the third world governments, praise the third world governments for their support of tradition and family values, or whatever it is they do down there.

My point is that it's absurd to call media free when they are getting paid by those who they are supposed to investigate. A better model, I think, would be this:

1. Each year, the government gives the media money.

2. If they wish to partake in this scheme, they have to put the money they get in a fund, which must be kept separate from the rest of their assets.

3. By law, they are prohibited from withdrawing more than say 5% of the assets each year, just as they must maintain a minimum share capital.

4. At registration, the government should give the various media corporations 20x the annual contribution for their such funds.

5. Upon liquidation, they must return the excess assets in the fund to the government.

This would insulate them from short-term political decisions. Even after ten years of no funding, they would still have 60% of their assets plus whatever the return on the way they invested them in was.

- private media without oversight, no requirements on democratic participation of all parties nor equal screen time, in return getting kickbacks by relatively transparent processes

EDIT: Since you're downvoting me, here's one example - not strictly a cloud provider, but a DoS protection provider, but I'd still argue it counts: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158406276570734592

Centralized, corruptible bottlenecks like political payment processors and political big cloud providers are eroding the open nature of the internet.

Although I think it’s possible to replace and/or reform some of the current sore spots, the pessimist in me is worried we have deeper social and philosophical problems that will prevent things from moving in that direction. Many people now seem to reject the very idea of apolitical utilities. They consider it immoral to allow the existence of services for people they consider to be severely harming others through their use of that infrastructure, despite the often political and highly debatable nature of that harm.

A free and open internet is built on the same philosophical principles as the first amendment. The spirit of the first amendment is something the people as a whole need to respect in order for it to work.

People forget how much religious sects hated each other when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Europe had been fighting a seemingly endless series of religious conflicts since the protestant reformation, and adherents believed allowing opposing adherents to spread their corrupting influence would literally damn the world to hell.

The first amendment was about allowing others to practice beliefs despite sincere fears that such beliefs would damn the world to hell. If we can’t allow people we consider corrupting to operate, and need to bar all of those corrupting influences from access to core utilities, we are failing to live up to the principles underlying the first amendment and risk plunging back into the kind of sectarian and philosophically based conflict the enlightenment helped us to escape from. If those we dislike and may consider evil are respecting our property rights and are not committing physical violence against us, we should be tolerant and allow them to exist and operate in society and seek to change them only through open dialog, not forceful coercion.

I can’t wait until vocal minority has been seen for what it is and now cow toed to. The best art and comedy and film of the past wouldn’t exist if created today because surely it would offend someone and “need” to be canceled.

Now that's quite a playbook.

Also: Trump isn't banned on Twitter.

It should be neutral and non-political, supportive of all view points.

"But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added.

Dorsey went on to insist that his company only polices behavior on the platform, not content.

Is having a personal political opinion only illegal if it is left-leaning?

And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.

I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.

Also, I remember when Twitter was getting really big one of their prominent founders (May have been jack but I can’t remember) did an interview in which they positioned themselves that social media platforms should use “constitutional logic” (for those not in the states, that’s the USA constitution) when regulating speech in their platform l, which, for better or worse, depending on context and things, “kill all white men” would pass the fee speech test.

Interestingly enough I actually can’t find anything that supports the example you’re referring to here. On the other hand I’ve seen tons and tons of sexist, misogynistic, white supremacist tweets that are super prominent on the platform.

The Republicans that were strongly grounded in either policy positions and/or truth have all been vilified (Comey, Mueller, Amash, Flake, McCain, G Conway, Bush, Romney, etc). Even guys like Bolton, who holds extreme conservative opinions on how to run government, cannot succeed in the party because he doesn't toe the line on fealty to Trump / 'flat-earth'.

See: Voat, Gab and so forth.