He can't change the first amendment.
It's like the IRL version of claiming support from lurkers.
> They would support any republican candidate
Republican Party identification is pretty constant at 25-30%, below both Democratic and Independent.
For “most” do you mean in terms of population count?
For “people” do you mean registered voters ?
Republicans would win every election if that was the case
If you say all polling is invalid/not representative, where are you getting your numbers from?
And again, what makes this overwhelming?
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/499808-appeals-court-r...
"The Trump administration’s proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting “in good faith.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media...
Search “Joe Biden creepy” on google, and then search the same thing on Bing. Why are the results so different?
Try sending a private message on Facebook containing the string “joebiden.info.” Why won’t it send?
This is a popular, but baseless conspiracy theory.
The myth of social media anti-conservative bias refuses to die https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php
The NY Post is a low quality tabloid that is just a step above the Enquirer, for example.
Define "quality"
You may find Google results more to your personal liking
Yet others will find Other Search Engine™ has "better" results
It’s also worth noting that was only one example I cited. It doesn’t change the fact that Twitter has only ever “fact checked” Trump (by linking to CNN), and that Facebook prohibits you from sending links to JoeBiden.info in private messages. Are these not clear examples of bias?
You can make the argument that these companies have the right to as much bias as they want on their own platforms. But you cannot in good faith make the argument that such bias does not exist, or that it’s some conspiracy theory to suggest that it does.
Studies of conservatives show that they prefer authoritarianism and unquestioning loyalty over competency and expertise. When their loyalty to an idea, a leader, or a political ideology is questioned, it undermines their worldview. So the “bias” you are really describing, is just good old fashioned critical thinking, which by its very design, confronts and questions authority, and upholds values of openness, tolerance, and free inquiry—the bane of conservatism.
All you have to do is come up with good ideas. It’s that simple.
Critical thinking is great. We should all do it. Just because I agree with that doesn’t mean I want or need some company to do the “critical thinking” for me.
In fact, the things you’re defending tend to get in the way of critical thinking. It’s hard to apply critical thought with incomplete information, which is what tends to be available when news agencies apply selection bias to which stories they report, or search engines remove results they deem derogatory, or social media platforms forbid sending links in private messages.
You raise the “incomplete information” tactic, which denialists on both the left and the right depend upon. Climate denialists say we shouldn’t mitigate because we don’t have enough data or they argue that the data is suspect. We know, and we have consensus. Do we need more information about the 18,000 lies Trump has spread already?
Facebook and Twitter are already on record (and off record per the WSJ article yesterday) showing that they gave the benefit of the doubt to conservatives because algorithms were consistently selecting their rhetoric as problematic. Twitter wouldn’t filter out the Nazis, for example, because it also targeted Republican politicians.
Are you okay with Facebook banning links in private messages? Why can’t I link to JoeBiden.info, a clearly marked parody website full of factual information, in a private message to a friend? What possible reason could there be for this, other than bias?
Are you okay with Twitter editorializing the president’s tweets, but not doing the same for those of Adam Schiff or Joe Biden? Both of them have promoted baseless conspiracy theories on Twitter, like suggesting Trump is a Russian agent. Yet they’ve never been “fact checked.” Are you okay with the idea that the person in charge of the fact checking initiative at Twitter has a history of publicly calling Trump a “Nazi” and a “racist tangerine?” Does this seem like an arrangement that will result in anything but biased “fact checks?”
I’m having a hard time seeing how this is good for critical thought, as you seem to be suggesting. Telling people what to think is not the basis upon which critical thought develops. If anything, such editorializing will only further polarize people and increase their emotional attachment to pre-existing beliefs.
I can make a website right now; donaldtrumpcantposthere.com; and I can put a little chat room there and people can type whatever they want and maybe it'll show up, but you know what? Whoever posts there, I can do whatever I want with it. I might get in trouble for _other_ things (facilitating online bullying, distributing copyrighted material, etc.), but "free speech" is not one of them. That's how it works when you deal with private corporations. Don't like it? Move to China :b
Here's a photo from space of the India-Pakistan border: https://qz.com/india/516864/the-india-pakistan-border-is-so-...
Assuming that's not a fake photo (or that this one is: https://time.com/4780003/international-borders-from-space/), I would say that sufficient evidence exists to say that what the Dalai Lama stated is factually incorrect.