EV Tax Incentive [closed due to political discussions]

[Dids]

Quite lousy, to be honest. My Facebook feed has become quite bland. I used to get a variety, now it seems the same posters pop up all the time and not even the ones I enjoy the most. These algorithms are also questionable in their ethics. They are screening users viewpoints.

If an insurrection was actually planned on FB, why wasn't it reported to authorities to prepare or take action? As I said, a communications medium should report illegal activity to proper authorities. It's not that your words shouldn't have consequence, it's that you should still be able to speak your words. And people will always be able to speak. If FB and other outlets ban the discussion, people will go underground and find other ways. I prefer these things to be in the open where we can be aware and possibly intervein.

You make it sound like you doubt an insurrection was planned.
"Assistant FBI Director Steven D'Antuono said the intelligence report, prepared by the bureau's Norfolk, Virginia, office, included a "thread from a message board" that described an array of preparations for an assault, including a map of Capitol-area tunnels and staging areas in in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and South Carolina."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6641706002

Advertisement

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

You make it sound like you doubt an insurrection was planned.
"Assistant FBI Director Steven D'Antuono said the intelligence report, prepared by the bureau's Norfolk, Virginia, office, included a "thread from a message board" that described an array of preparations for an assault, including a map of Capitol-area tunnels and staging areas in in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and South Carolina."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6641706002

Read my post again.

 

[Crissa]

tell that to the people (hosts) in congress that lie....

That's the thing. The Congresspeople would be immune, because political speech, but the site would not, because the site wasn't political. Our system of laws makes that distinction now.

-Crissa

 

[flowerlandfilms]

Everyone knows that, that's basic. What is concerning to many, is the removal of the ability to speak. It is one thing to say using freedom of speech to commit crimes should be punished. It's also one thing to say using freedom of speech to say mean or awful things makes me dislike you, or not want to do business with you. It's another to say I don't like what you say, so you will no longer be able to say it. This is new territory, and it's exceedingly dangerous.

Mark Zuckerberg is on record of saying that he envisioned FB as evolving into more of a utility, like the phone company. Increasingly, we use it as a communications platform, perhaps even our primary communications platform. If it is to be such a platform, like our phone line or our mail service or our internet access, it needs to be unbiased. If I use my phone to hire a hitman to kill someone, I should be charged. If I use it to discuss things that are not illegal - no matter how unpleasant - I'm still allowed to use my phone. My speech is not regulated.

The big example of this topic is, of course, the recent banning of Trump from Twitter, FB, Insta, Youtube, App and Google stores, etc. By all accounts he hasn't done anything illegal - though that's up for debate - but he's been silenced. These are private companies, they're allowed to do that. But should they be able to? Perhaps it's time for communications laws to be updated with the time, and FB, etc, should not be allowed to regulate such content much like ATT can't listen in on your calls and turn off your phone if it doesn't like what you say. As Elon recently tweeted, "A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech being the de facto arbiter of free speech."

What's weird to me is that the idea of free speech has become a "right" value in recent years. I've always thought of freedom from the norm as being a "left" trait, whether it was freedom to be gay, freedom to use profane language, freedom to dance... whatever it may be, it was traditionally "right" people that wanted conformity. Now, in the last 10 years I've observed a startling shift where "left" people are increasingly looking to shut up dissenting opinions, "cancel" them, etc. As a moderate, it increasingly weighs in my opinions. I think you're seeing it in a lot of similar thinkers, Elon being one of them. They may not agree with "right" ideals, but agree with the right to have them.

...in what way has he been silenced?...
...he is, while in the White House, 50 feet from the press gallery at all times...
...he is literally the most reported on person on the planet...
...anything he says in that room is instantly transmitted to every journalist in the world...
...he chooses to use social media instead of official channels...
...probably because it's easier to manipulate people that way...
...he has not in any way been silenced...

 

[FutureBoy]

Everyone knows that, that's basic. What is concerning to many, is the removal of the ability to speak. It is one thing to say using freedom of speech to commit crimes should be punished. It's also one thing to say using freedom of speech to say mean or awful things makes me dislike you, or not want to do business with you. It's another to say I don't like what you say, so you will no longer be able to say it. This is new territory, and it's exceedingly dangerous.

Mark Zuckerberg is on record of saying that he envisioned FB as evolving into more of a utility, like the phone company. Increasingly, we use it as a communications platform, perhaps even our primary communications platform. If it is to be such a platform, like our phone line or our mail service or our internet access, it needs to be unbiased. If I use my phone to hire a hitman to kill someone, I should be charged. If I use it to discuss things that are not illegal - no matter how unpleasant - I'm still allowed to use my phone. My speech is not regulated.

The big example of this topic is, of course, the recent banning of Trump from Twitter, FB, Insta, Youtube, App and Google stores, etc. By all accounts he hasn't done anything illegal - though that's up for debate - but he's been silenced. These are private companies, they're allowed to do that. But should they be able to? Perhaps it's time for communications laws to be updated with the time, and FB, etc, should not be allowed to regulate such content much like ATT can't listen in on your calls and turn off your phone if it doesn't like what you say. As Elon recently tweeted, "A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech being the de facto arbiter of free speech."

What's weird to me is that the idea of free speech has become a "right" value in recent years. I've always thought of freedom from the norm as being a "left" trait, whether it was freedom to be gay, freedom to use profane language, freedom to dance... whatever it may be, it was traditionally "right" people that wanted conformity. Now, in the last 10 years I've observed a startling shift where "left" people are increasingly looking to shut up dissenting opinions, "cancel" them, etc. As a moderate, it increasingly weighs in my opinions. I think you're seeing it in a lot of similar thinkers, Elon being one of them. They may not agree with "right" ideals, but agree with the right to have them.

...in what way has he been silenced?...
...he is, while in the White House, 50 feet from the press gallery at all times...
...he is literally the most reported on person on the planet...
...anything he says in that room is instantly transmitted to every journalist in the world...
...he chooses to use social media instead of official channels...
...probably because it's easier to manipulate people that way...
...he has not in any way been silenced...

I find this whole thread about people being silenced, free speech rights on social media, and cancel culture to be hilariously misguided.

I've been told that most of the people on this site are on the old side of things. But no one seems to remember that the social media companies being talked about didn't even exist 30 years ago. The vast majority of people in the US were barely even cognizant of email 30 years ago. So how does any of that relate in any way to free speech?

As per the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That was established clear back in 1791. For all those constitutional originalists there is no mention of social media in there. In the first amendment we get that Congress cannot make any laws regarding:

• establishment and exercise of religion
• abridging freedom of speech
• abridging freedom of the press
• people peaceably assembling
• petitioning the government for a redress of grievances

That's it. Now you might speak up and point out the freedom of speech there in the list. But this just says Congress can't make laws taking away free speech. It doesn't say that if some new medium of communication comes up in the future that it has to allow anyone and everyone to use it to say whatever they want. In fact, if it's a private company then the amendment seems to say that no matter what the company does regarding people using the medium the government is not allowed to intervene.

Social media kicking people off their networks is not affecting anyone's free speech. If social media is where free speech gets defined then what was happening with free speech between 1791 and say 1990? No one had free speech during that time? If you get kicked off of say Twitter, do you have any less free speech than you did 30 years ago? Sure it is convenient to send messages off into the ether while paying no mind to where all it goes. But that is not part of free speech. You are still perfectly free to say any and nearly everything you feel the need to say. And now that the Supreme Court has established that spending money is a form of free speech you are also free to pay others to say things for you. Once it comes out of your mouth/fingers/pocketbook though the medium is not part of your speech.

So if Twitter decides to shut down someone's account, that is Twitter's right. Both because Twitter cannot be legislated by Congress to allow or disallow specific speech but also because Twitter as a corporate person is allowed to hold their own viewpoint and amplify/deny the use of their platform as they see fit.

Now if you get silenced by Twitter, there is nothing stopping you from establishing your own communication medium. Call it Tweeter and have it do basically the same functionality if you like. Then use it to say whatever it was that caused you to get banned on Twitter. If your message is more popular than the messages on Twitter perhaps you will even out-compete Twitter and possibly even make more of a profit than Twitter.

So what happens if you build such a company and just when things start looking like your platform might get popular, your hosting company decides to kick you off their servers. Well, wouldn't you know it. You once again have not been silenced by the government and your free speech rights have not in any way been breached. You may have to stand up your own servers and related infrastructure at some point but you are totally free to do that. And by golly, if some crazy user on your Tweeter network says something completely objectionable to you, you have the right to kick them off your network permanently. The government has no right to force you to put them back on your network and let them spew their objectionable views.

Now in the current news cycles, it is speech from the political right that has been finding difficulty on the popular social mediums. And as a result, some new competing social media platforms have become more popular. I keep hearing from people on the right that there are very objectionable people on the left that say horrible things though. So it would not surprise me in any way if someone from the far left were to sign on to these newer right-leaning social media sites and speak up that they would be banned from the sites.

And through all of this, no one's free speech has been harmed in any way. And the government has nothing to do with any of it.

Now to flowerlandfilms point, the current president (Trump at the moment) has been kicked off of a few social media networks. He is perfectly welcome to walk out to the press room or out on the lawn, or take a flight to his border wall, or anywhere else on the planet for that matter. In any of those scenarios he will be surrounded by cameras and microphones. Each and every word will be recorded. His speech will be free.

Once he has said his peace though the press is perfectly free to amplify/deny his speech on their broadcasts/print/social media streams. I would expect that some of the press will amplify things they find negative and ignore things they find positive. But there will also be competing press that will do exactly the opposite. And if Trump is to be believed, some press will just make up stories about his speech. And all of this is exactly what the 1st Amendment is sanctioning. Beyond that, we the people are completely free to consume any of the press output that we see fit. Or to ignore the press completely. Or to find some random anonymous messianic messenger to listen to as an alternative to the press. Still, no one's free speech has been impinged upon.

Now having said all this, you are freely allowed to respond/ignore. This site is completely justified in removing this post. I've said nothing about the Cybertruck in this post so I wouldn't even have a complaint if it were taken down.

 

[Crissa]

I would point out that Parlor did exactly that: Built a competing service to Twitter using third-party servers. The cloud, so to speak.

But the owners of those servers don't have to serve all customers. Abusive customers can be told to leave. And that's what AWS told Parlor.

-Crissa

 

[GnarlyDudeLive]

I would point out that Parlor did exactly that: Built a competing service to Twitter using third-party servers. The cloud, so to speak.

But the owners of those servers don't have to serve all customers. Abusive customers can be told to leave. And that's what AWS told Parlor.

-Crissa

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

At the national level, protected classes include:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religion or creed
• Sex
• Age
• Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
• Veteran status

Some states, like California, have more protected classes than the federal baseline. In addition to the above factors, California adds:

• Marital status
• Sexual orientation or gender identity
• Medical condition, or AIDS/HIV status
• Military or veteran status
• Political affiliations or activities
• Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking

 

[DarinCT]

I find this whole thread about people being silenced, free speech rights on social media, and cancel culture to be hilariously misguided.

I've been told that most of the people on this site are on the old side of things. But no one seems to remember that the social media companies being talked about didn't even exist 30 years ago. The vast majority of people in the US were barely even cognizant of email 30 years ago. So how does any of that relate in any way to free speech?

As per the 1st Amendment:


That was established clear back in 1791. For all those constitutional originalists there is no mention of social media in there. In the first amendment we get that Congress cannot make any laws regarding:

• establishment and exercise of religion
• abridging freedom of speech
• abridging freedom of the press
• people peaceably assembling
• petitioning the government for a redress of grievances

That's it. Now you might speak up and point out the freedom of speech there in the list. But this just says Congress can't make laws taking away free speech. It doesn't say that if some new medium of communication comes up in the future that it has to allow anyone and everyone to use it to say whatever they want. In fact, if it's a private company then the amendment seems to say that no matter what the company does regarding people using the medium the government is not allowed to intervene.

Social media kicking people off their networks is not affecting anyone's free speech. If social media is where free speech gets defined then what was happening with free speech between 1791 and say 1990? No one had free speech during that time? If you get kicked off of say Twitter, do you have any less free speech than you did 30 years ago? Sure it is convenient to send messages off into the ether while paying no mind to where all it goes. But that is not part of free speech. You are still perfectly free to say any and nearly everything you feel the need to say. And now that the Supreme Court has established that spending money is a form of free speech you are also free to pay others to say things for you. Once it comes out of your mouth/fingers/pocketbook though the medium is not part of your speech.

So if Twitter decides to shut down someone's account, that is Twitter's right. Both because Twitter cannot be legislated by Congress to allow or disallow specific speech but also because Twitter as a corporate person is allowed to hold their own viewpoint and amplify/deny the use of their platform as they see fit.

Now if you get silenced by Twitter, there is nothing stopping you from establishing your own communication medium. Call it Tweeter and have it do basically the same functionality if you like. Then use it to say whatever it was that caused you to get banned on Twitter. If your message is more popular than the messages on Twitter perhaps you will even out-compete Twitter and possibly even make more of a profit than Twitter.

So what happens if you build such a company and just when things start looking like your platform might get popular, your hosting company decides to kick you off their servers. Well, wouldn't you know it. You once again have not been silenced by the government and your free speech rights have not in any way been breached. You may have to stand up your own servers and related infrastructure at some point but you are totally free to do that. And by golly, if some crazy user on your Tweeter network says something completely objectionable to you, you have the right to kick them off your network permanently. The government has no right to force you to put them back on your network and let them spew their objectionable views.

Now in the current news cycles, it is speech from the political right that has been finding difficulty on the popular social mediums. And as a result, some new competing social media platforms have become more popular. I keep hearing from people on the right that there are very objectionable people on the left that say horrible things though. So it would not surprise me in any way if someone from the far left were to sign on to these newer right-leaning social media sites and speak up that they would be banned from the sites.

And through all of this, no one's free speech has been harmed in any way. And the government has nothing to do with any of it.

Now to flowerlandfilms point, the current president (Trump at the moment) has been kicked off of a few social media networks. He is perfectly welcome to walk out to the press room or out on the lawn, or take a flight to his border wall, or anywhere else on the planet for that matter. In any of those scenarios he will be surrounded by cameras and microphones. Each and every word will be recorded. His speech will be free.

Once he has said his peace though the press is perfectly free to amplify/deny his speech on their broadcasts/print/social media streams. I would expect that some of the press will amplify things they find negative and ignore things they find positive. But there will also be competing press that will do exactly the opposite. And if Trump is to be believed, some press will just make up stories about his speech. And all of this is exactly what the 1st Amendment is sanctioning. Beyond that, we the people are completely free to consume any of the press output that we see fit. Or to ignore the press completely. Or to find some random anonymous messianic messenger to listen to as an alternative to the press. Still, no one's free speech has been impinged upon.

Now having said all this, you are freely allowed to respond/ignore. This site is completely justified in removing this post. I've said nothing about the Cybertruck in this post so I wouldn't even have a complaint if it were taken down.

Warning: Cheeky comment ahead

Haven't you noticed that well-written, thoughtful, long form comments (especially ones with hyperlinks to supporting documents) are not what the audience wants??!?

In response to what you said, it turns out the Supreme Court thinks otherwise. They define a public space as a location for the free exchange of ideas. This idea then extends to private property (Marsh v. Alabama, 1946). As long as you aren't causing trouble with your free speech on their private property, (Intel Corp v. Hamidi, 2003) as well as many other rulings. To put a fine point on it, the Supreme Court **unanimously** ruled that social media is a free speech right (Packington v. North Carolina, 2017).

In other words, Twitter can't impose any left-or-right perspective without the threat of getting sued. They follow the rules that Congress does indeed set down for them. The real issue is that Congressional guidance is thin. As each new case makes its way through the courts about what is and is not protected and what is and is not required to police, the social media platforms adjust.

 

[Crissa]

There is certainly an argument that social media is the new public square. But we haven't regulated them like utilities that provide that square. And in any event, illegal, disruptive, or liability causing activities will still get you ejected from a public square.

Making false, defamatory, inciting, or criminal (threatening or organizing) statements certainly fall into those categories.

-Crissa

 

[happy intruder]

There is certainly an argument that social media is the new public square. But we haven't regulated them like utilities that provide that square. And in any event, illegal, disruptive, or liability causing activities will still get you ejected from a public square.

Making false, defamatory, inciting, or criminal (threatening or organizing) statements certainly fall into those categories.

-Crissa

well are all the rejections from all the fire burning cities from last summer.....elected officials calling for it......dont see that happening.....so your spare approach just became the circle of what people are saying is wring with the medias approach to fair reporting.....example: CNN reporter said everything was fine.....peaceful and cal.......yet people were running for their lives as building in the background were burning to the ground

 

[FutureBoy]

Warning: Cheeky comment ahead

Haven't you noticed that well-written, thoughtful, long form comments (especially ones with hyperlinks to supporting documents) are not what the audience wants??!?

In response to what you said, it turns out the Supreme Court thinks otherwise. They define a public space as a location for the free exchange of ideas. This idea then extends to private property (Marsh v. Alabama, 1946). As long as you aren't causing trouble with your free speech on their private property, (Intel Corp v. Hamidi, 2003) as well as many other rulings. To put a fine point on it, the Supreme Court **unanimously** ruled that social media is a free speech right (Packington v. North Carolina, 2017).

In other words, Twitter can't impose any left-or-right perspective without the threat of getting sued. They follow the rules that Congress does indeed set down for them. The real issue is that Congressional guidance is thin. As each new case makes its way through the courts about what is and is not protected and what is and is not required to police, the social media platforms adjust.

Thing is though, Trump didn't get kicked off of social media because of his political views. If the social media companies were truly removing him because of his political views it would have happened WAAAAAYYYY earlier. No, it didn't happen till his speech was to the point that an Impeachment article described it as inciting violence against the government.

As far as I can see, all the other people with similar views to Trump that are moving to alternative social media are moving of their own accord. I have yet to hear of them being banned from social media because of their political views.

Twitter is not imposing a left-or-right perspective in this case. Perhaps in other cases but certainly not in respect to Trump. But again, that is my perspective.

 

[Dids]

well are all the rejections from all the fire burning cities from last summer.....elected officials calling for it......dont see that happening.....so your spare approach just became the circle of what people are saying is wring with the medias approach to fair reporting.....example: CNN reporter said everything was fine.....peaceful and cal.......yet people were running for their lives as building in the background were burning to the ground

Its true. CNN did display text that said "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests" while they reported on the protests and the fire. I guess they should have only reported on the Fiery protests and not reported on the other parts because then the ywould have been "fair and balanced".

 

[FutureBoy]

Haven't you noticed that well-written, thoughtful, long form comments (especially ones with hyperlinks to supporting documents) are not what the audience wants??!?

"You had me at Hello"

LOL

I'm going to take your statement as a positive affirmation that I have well-written, and thoughtful comments.

Thank you!!

And thanks for your legal references. I'm not a lawyer but do very much appreciate it when people cite their references so I can actually learn something.

As for the audience. They can take it or leave it. The people wants what the people wants. I might just be relegated to the dustbin of history. At least I had some fun during the run.

 

[FutureBoy]

[T]he Supreme Court **unanimously** ruled that social media is a free speech right (Packington v. North Carolina, 2017).

As a total side note... The referenced article has this quote:

“A fundamental First Amendment principle is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. Given the fact that social-media platforms in particular allow for this kind of free communication, and that the constitution protects the right to exchange, the justices recognized this case was widely societally important, with Kennedy writing:

Here, in one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium.”

While I will agree that social media does ALLOW for persons to

speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more

I would say that in my experience that is very rarely what I see on social media. I tend to mostly see something like speak and then speak once more or on occasion, speak and listen, and then, speak once more. Or alternatively listen till someone offends and then dox them out of existence.

But I might have a jaded experience. I started my social media on Usenet and Bitnet back in the day. Far before the internet existed. What idealism the network seemed to produce back then.

 

[Ryan95738]

The former is true, the conclusion is not.

And supporting politicians who are directly opposed to actually reaching the goals or choosing paths that could reach those goals seems very unuseful.

-Crissa

Elon has been burnt by all the Democrats who want to tax most companies crazy crazy amounts forever and ever look at what the Democratic governors in California have done to him and his business. he knows that there is a better way of governance and he knows that the Democratic party isn't the way he wants to go other than that I don't know that he has chosen leaders he likes. there aren't a lot of good leaders to choose from in this country I can tell you that much