ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 8,596
- 1,822
- 140
I wont comment on all those historical excursions offered by you, because it is pointless and will lead to nothing.About Facebook I already said. If it violates anti-trust regulations, then it should be split. But only based on these things.Of course I dont watch Soloviev's shows.What a bunch of crap. Dude, you dont even understand to what extent you contradict himself.condemn silencing Trump by Social nets moguls, you must demand restoration of >70 000 accounts of Trump supporters in social nets, you must fiercly fight for the right of conservative Americans to reject propaganda of LGBT values, you must resist recent decision of S&P stock exchange to delist companies which don't have gay/transgender members in their boards if directors, becayse it is against liberalism to give artificial and unfair advantages to anyone
Liberalism is the right of an owner to decide what they should do with their property and what services they want to provide and to whom.
Liberalism is the right of all people to be equal, dont matter whether you agree with their personal life or not.
Украина дае сдачи... Ukraine strikes back.. Esay, do you watch Soloviev live? I recommend you a lot Today's serie is extremely funny, he used a couple of old tapes of president Ze congradulating Ukrainisn oligarkhs right after his today's speech
**'*
there are spheres which must not be privitazed aka monopolized.
Justice cannot be privatized. A court cannot be a private company.
Social nets must not be a private company in the part which concerns freedom of speech.
Because it is a basic right of the people. Its execution, like the right for fair justice, cannot be monopolized by a private company. Their commercial rights must be limited to monetizing their activity, ads, fees, etc. ONLY. Fredom of speech cannot be a subject of privatization.
If Facebook or Twiter became monopolies - they must be divided and deprived of the right of censorship on political motives. Probably, like private prisons, they should also have clear limits in their activity.
About Facebook and Twitter. If their business activity contradicts anti-monopoly regulations, then they should be divided. But only if it is based on these regulations.
As private businesses they should be able to operate freely and decide what services they provide and to whom.
the problem of the US is that it goes in wrong direction, silencing the voices of reason, like this one
Facebook exec says Zuckerberg is TOO POWERFUL and Facebook should be BROKEN UP, in undercover interview
Benny Thomas, Facebook's Global Planning Lead, told a reporter from Project Veritas that his company is as powerful as a country, and needs to be broken up. “No king in history” is as powerful as Mark Zuckerberg, he claimed.www.rt.com
while the problem of Ukraine is that it chose wrong, stupid gods, the West which is lost and confused himself... and brainlessly follow what the West demands, which it does not for sake of Ukrainian interests, but to profit from Ukrainian naive stupidity...
About repelling the Section 230, which is mentioned in the article, I dont think it is a good idea. Because making social networks accountable for the content posted by their users will lead to increasing censorship of the content.
Taking away their right to delete the content at their will will breach the right of a private owner to impose the rules how they want to operate their property.
About Ukraine and choosing the West. Different people have different reasons why they supported this move. I believe in the ideas the Western society was built on (or was tried, at least). It might be that West is enduring some sort of cultural crisis but I believe it will be able to overcome it.
lol, the ideas the Western society was built upon...
Europe has always been totalitarian and selfish, these are 2 main principles of the West. It burnt heretics, killed millions in Crusades, killed millions in colonial expansion, Communism, Nazism - all invented and implemented in Europe.
If not USSR the World would have lived now in a big Nazi concentration camp.
If not Russia the World would have been by now a big British colony.
What the West successfully presents to various Papuans, including Ukrainians is its wealth, falsely claiming it is a result of "democracy", while in reality it is a result of unprecedented robbery during colonial period and its inertia, an accumulated development which has put the West once in colonial era on the top and from which it is slowly slipping down when colonial era is over.
Western "democracy" was tranquility and quitness caused by extreme wealth, people were content, no real problems to quarrel about.
But as soon as first real problems emerged, as level of life declined - the West immediately started demonstrating its ugly totalitarian face with full force.
Look at the Democratic repressions in the US, look at increasingly Nazi Europe.
generally speaking, for you it will be increasingly a tragedy to follow the path you will keep realizing is wrong, for me it's a great show!
When I mentioned the ideas the Western society was built upon, I meant the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, if you understand what I mean of course. Of course, these ideas haven't been realized in full. But I hope they will be in some point in the future.
And I dont understand your gloat. Through the most part of its history, Russia has been backward and underdeveloped country. Virtually all reforms were made using European model. And now it (Russia) has turned into an authoritarian shithole. Again. Good point to be proud, indeed.