This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change  (Read 1451 times)

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
On the other hand, there are Republican state laws that narrowly try to force social media companies to host politicians -- notably Florida's SB 7072 and Texas' HB 20. However, those laws run directly afoul of the social media company's First Amendment right to control their own platform. The Texas law was just re-blocked by an unusual majority on the Supreme Court (John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer).
It's about time they ruled franking unconstitutional!

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?
Psaki literally admitted "[w]e are flagging problematic posts for Facebook". Why do the social media companies go along, when the government sends them blacklists? Because the government has the power to make the regulations and laws, enforce them with guns, and then adjudicate them. That power can be used to kill companies, or to help them by creating a walled garden that makes it hard for newcomers to enter the market. Also, don't silence them. We didn't learn about the extent of domestic spying until a certain expat in Russia, and a large part of it was gag orders that prevented the companies from even talking in general about many millions of Americans' information was being funneled to the government.

The only way to solve the problem is reduce the government's discretionary power to favor or fuck with companies. Have strong regulations, but keep them relatively few in number, and make them clear as glass. Because corruption occurs where technocrats can change the rules to help or hinder companies, when they can arbitrarily decide to enforce them or not, and and when they have broad latitude to decide when they apply. Also, get rid of the revolving door between business and government. If you're angling for a cushy job with Big Pharma in 5 years, you're not going to be a very good regulator of Big Pharma today. And if the regulatory boards/commission/etc are full of people who used to work in the industry, they're going to ensure their friends in the industry are in good shape, and help keep new competitors out (cf. the FTC).

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3511
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?
Psaki literally admitted "[w]e are flagging problematic posts for Facebook". Why do the social media companies go along, when the government sends them blacklists? Because the government has the power to make the regulations and laws, enforce them with guns, and then adjudicate them. That power can be used to kill companies, or to help them by creating a walled garden that makes it hard for newcomers to enter the market. Also, don't silence them. We didn't learn about the extent of domestic spying until a certain expat in Russia, and a large part of it was gag orders that prevented the companies from even talking in general about many millions of Americans' information was being funneled to the government.

The only way to solve the problem is reduce the government's discretionary power to favor or fuck with companies. Have strong regulations, but keep them relatively few in number, and make them clear as glass. Because corruption occurs where technocrats can change the rules to help or hinder companies, when they can arbitrarily decide to enforce them or not, and and when they have broad latitude to decide when they apply. Also, get rid of the revolving door between business and government. If you're angling for a cushy job with Big Pharma in 5 years, you're not going to be a very good regulator of Big Pharma today. And if the regulatory boards/commission/etc are full of people who used to work in the industry, they're going to ensure their friends in the industry are in good shape, and help keep new competitors out (cf. the FTC).
I take back literally every bad thing I've said about you. That is the ONLY solution to this mess: limit government's power so that it is no longer feasible to throw money at it to get the power aimed at an opponent.

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.

Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.
The fallacy that all problems with the government are because somehow evil people got into power, and if just get rid of them and replace them with good people, then everything will be sunshine and roses and free abortions that live, is exactly why we're in this mess.

It's about incentives and institutions. People generally aren't malicious, but they will act in their own self-interest a lot of the time, and it's really easy to rationalize what's good for me as what's good for everyone. That leads to self-perpetuating bureaucracies that always need more resources. The only real solution is limit or remove the potential benefits for self-serving behavior, and to pare the whole system back.

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 965
It's about incentives and institutions. People generally aren't malicious, but they will act in their own self-interest a lot of the time, and it's really easy to rationalize what's good for me as what's good for everyone. That leads to self-perpetuating bureaucracies that always need more resources. The only real solution is limit or remove the potential benefits for self-serving behavior, and to pare the whole system back.

It becomes further complicated when short-term and long-term self-interest are in conflict, or self-interest in one sphere (economic, religious, status, legal, political) conflicts with self-interest in another sphere, or there is an irreconcilable clash of self-interest between individuals or groups.  To paraphrase the old saying, politics is the art of determining what you're willing to give up to get what you're willing to settle for.

One reason there has been such a bleedover of moral campaigning into corporate policy and public discourse is because the natural short-term incentive for a corporation is to cater to the more intransigent market demand when it costs nothing to do so (see Nicholas Nassim Taleb's article here.) About the only way to overcome this is to try to create equal intolerance in the other direction, which is the basic point of the "Don't give money to people who hate you" campaign.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2022, 03:33:26 PM by Stephen Tannhauser »
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7330
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.
The fallacy that all problems with the government are because somehow evil people got into power, and if just get rid of them and replace them with good people, then everything will be sunshine and roses and free abortions that live, is exactly why we're in this mess.

It's about incentives and institutions. People generally aren't malicious, but they will act in their own self-interest a lot of the time, and it's really easy to rationalize what's good for me as what's good for everyone. That leads to self-perpetuating bureaucracies that always need more resources. The only real solution is limit or remove the potential benefits for self-serving behavior, and to pare the whole system back.

CGP Grey did a video on the "unspoken" incentives for people in postions of power. Based on The Dictator's Handbook.



I think it helps to understand the politics behind politics.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14527
The best answer is civil war. Time for the angry men with guns to purge America of the soys crying over pronouns and microaggressions. This represents the best long term solution, but the Right has shown no willingness to use the 2A for offense.

The second best answer is Red State Secession. It can be achieved peacefully and as I've posted many times before - it's Retreat / Rebuild / Reconquer as a long term strategy. This is the most logical solution as the USA is now two opposing cultures with no common ground.

The okay answer is the creation of "parallel economies" where there are companies, venues and events which cater to one side of the culture vs the other. AKA, non-woketard versions of DriveThru, YouTube, Farcebook, Twatter, GenCon, etc. However, this is only kicking the can down the road.

Of course, the worst answer is continuing with the current situation which is only going to get worse and more difficult to deal with over time.






Pat

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
The okay answer is the creation of "parallel economies" where there are companies, venues and events which cater to one side of the culture vs the other. AKA, non-woketard versions of DriveThru, YouTube, Farcebook, Twatter, GenCon, etc. However, this is only kicking the can down the road.
Solzhenitsyn and the Plastic People of the Universe would disagree.

(For those who don't catch the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJr7awWGWAo)

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.

Thats why there is an alignment just for them.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Jam The MF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
How to fight evil, without becoming evil yourself?  Hmm......

That's a good question.
D&D isn't getting any better.  We need to look to the past.

Dinosaurs are real.

Valatar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • V
  • Posts: 157
The real issue at hand is that private corporations control the primary means for people to communicate in this day and age.  So while people can say, "Oh, free speech doesn't apply to private companies!", they have the de facto ability to stifle speech in the way that we engage in speech today.  Sure, they can't stop you from standing on a street corner and yelling at cars that pass by, but getting a message across to any number of people in this era requires digital communication, and the laws on the books do not acknowledge this fact.  They need to.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3511
The real issue at hand is that private corporations control the primary means for people to communicate in this day and age.  So while people can say, "Oh, free speech doesn't apply to private companies!", they have the de facto ability to stifle speech in the way that we engage in speech today.  Sure, they can't stop you from standing on a street corner and yelling at cars that pass by, but getting a message across to any number of people in this era requires digital communication, and the laws on the books do not acknowledge this fact.  They need to.
While not really a good thing to start with, the problem becomes squared and cubed when:

(a) you have private corporations acting as the speech enforcers for the government, which is precisely what's been happening over the last few years. There's a funny word for that sort of thing, you know...

(b) government entities also use their influence with corporations to help block the rise of new systems. 'Build your own platform, bro!' becomes a hollow reply when you literally can't, because you're effectively blackballed (and in some cases, shamelessly defrauded).