5 ms·

I have no doubt in my mind, if the United States was a country without checks and balances and the protection of the Constitution, we would be living under auth

I have no doubt in my mind, if the United States was a country without checks and balances and the protection of the Constitution, we would be living under authoritarian dictatorship right now. The quickness by the administration to attack media, promote propaganda, and now censorship is frightening.

growlist 8y ago
Indeed, Google's administration scare me also.
bhauer 8y ago
Sure, but to be fair, if we didn't have good checks and balances, things would have been bad a very long time ago. This isn't the first time checks and balances can/will help us avoid bad policy, and it won't be the last.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
The frightening thing is that this would-be-king still has support from 40% of the populace. We're stuck with them and they are the greatest threat to the principles of American freedom. This country can't work with so many people happily supporting demagogues who pander to their pet issues and ignoring the damage they cause.
pitaj 8y ago
If only the constitution was a little better to start with. The interpretation of the commerce and general welfare clauses hurts my soul.
FLUX-YOU 8y ago
While this particular instance is dumb, there's definitely conversations in politics that need to happen about algorithmic biases. If this kicks things off, I'm fine with that. Trump doesn't address other search engines though, which (hilariously) helps Google more than the threat of looming regulations hurts them. Getting attacked by Trump is a badge of honor at this point. Just about any liberal or conservative with a brain will realize only regulating Google's results is a very bad move when there is Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other search engines.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> The quickness by the administration to attack media, promote propaganda, and now censorship is frightening. How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech? And frankly, I think it's great that the media and the president have an adversarial relationship. The president should attack the media ( free speech ) and the media should attack the president ( free press ). Why would you want the president and the media having a cozy relationship? I can't think of a greater symbol of democracy and free speech than the president and the media keeping each other in check. The media and president should be adversaries, not friends. I'd rather the media tell us everything the president is doing wrong and shining the spotlight on him and vice versa. And this isn't just about republicans. I wish the media would be more adversarial with the democrats as well. With all politicians. It's a great way to keep politicians honest.
- cphoover 8y ago
  > "How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech?" We are talking about a president who routinely threatens punitive government actions against detractors. There exists a line between criticizing bad journalism, and using executive powers to threaten critics. The later is what dictators do. In the case of Google, they maintain their search algorithm is not politically biased. Unless we have substantive evidence proving otherwise I see no reason not to believe them. It seems what Trump is suggesting here, is a government regime controlling what search results we see... That is a very scary prospect, right now. I have a brother working as a journalist, who toils away fact checking, all day long. I can assure you he and his colleagues do way more due-diligence, fact-checking, and gathering of supporting evidence, than the Office of the Press Secretary could even try to pretend to. It's so easy to get up in a press-conference say something patently false, when you don't allow any dissent. If you don't like criticism it's "Fake News". If you can't see what Trump is doing when he calls the media "Anti-American", you have the wool over your eyes. It's dictator 101.
- stanleydrew 8y ago
  Censorship isn't the best word for this, but he's certainly not promoting free speech here. Promoting free speech would mean acknowledging that Google can do whatever it wants, and say whatever it wants to say via its search results, whether the government likes the results or not. Regarding the media, there's nothing wrong with the president and the media having an adversarial relationship and in fact I think that's the norm. But I wouldn't describe a president attacking the media as promoting free speech.
checkyoursudo 8y ago
While I am not sure how plausible it is that US gets there, it certainly feels like some sort of authoritarian dictatorship is still possible. Democracy is only as good as our institutions, and a lot of institutions seem to be struggling. Checks and balances require the separate branches to be willing to apply them. With the apparent lack of any meaningful oversight by the legislature, it does not seem like the checks and balances are working very effectively. I suppose that's a strong reason why many (including myself) prefer divided governments, so that adversaries can keep each other from going too far. I don't remember where I read it, but something like this rings true: the founders anticipated authoritarians seeking power, but they did not anticipate legislators allowing it. Edit: I don't mean to say that Trump becoming a dictator in the US is possible; I think that's extremely unlikely. I simply mean that there is a weakness in the US political system when government is controlled entirely by one party, and that this weakness could possibly be exploited some day.

growlist 8y ago

Indeed, Google's administration scare me also.

bhauer 8y ago

Sure, but to be fair, if we didn't have good checks and balances, things would have been bad a very long time ago. This isn't the first time checks and balances can/will help us avoid bad policy, and it won't be the last.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

The frightening thing is that this would-be-king still has support from 40% of the populace. We're stuck with them and they are the greatest threat to the principles of American freedom. This country can't work with so many people happily supporting demagogues who pander to their pet issues and ignoring the damage they cause.

pitaj 8y ago

If only the constitution was a little better to start with. The interpretation of the commerce and general welfare clauses hurts my soul.

FLUX-YOU 8y ago

While this particular instance is dumb, there's definitely conversations in politics that need to happen about algorithmic biases. If this kicks things off, I'm fine with that. Trump doesn't address other search engines though, which (hilariously) helps Google more than the threat of looming regulations hurts them. Getting attacked by Trump is a badge of honor at this point. Just about any liberal or conservative with a brain will realize only regulating Google's results is a very bad move when there is Bing, DuckDuckGo, and other search engines.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> The quickness by the administration to attack media, promote propaganda, and now censorship is frightening. How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech? And frankly, I think it's great that the media and the president have an adversarial relationship. The president should attack the media ( free speech ) and the media should attack the president ( free press ). Why would you want the president and the media having a cozy relationship? I can't think of a greater symbol of democracy and free speech than the president and the media keeping each other in check. The media and president should be adversaries, not friends. I'd rather the media tell us everything the president is doing wrong and shining the spotlight on him and vice versa. And this isn't just about republicans. I wish the media would be more adversarial with the democrats as well. With all politicians. It's a great way to keep politicians honest.

cphoover 8y ago
> "How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech?" We are talking about a president who routinely threatens punitive government actions against detractors. There exists a line between criticizing bad journalism, and using executive powers to threaten critics. The later is what dictators do. In the case of Google, they maintain their search algorithm is not politically biased. Unless we have substantive evidence proving otherwise I see no reason not to believe them. It seems what Trump is suggesting here, is a government regime controlling what search results we see... That is a very scary prospect, right now. I have a brother working as a journalist, who toils away fact checking, all day long. I can assure you he and his colleagues do way more due-diligence, fact-checking, and gathering of supporting evidence, than the Office of the Press Secretary could even try to pretend to. It's so easy to get up in a press-conference say something patently false, when you don't allow any dissent. If you don't like criticism it's "Fake News". If you can't see what Trump is doing when he calls the media "Anti-American", you have the wool over your eyes. It's dictator 101.
stanleydrew 8y ago
Censorship isn't the best word for this, but he's certainly not promoting free speech here. Promoting free speech would mean acknowledging that Google can do whatever it wants, and say whatever it wants to say via its search results, whether the government likes the results or not. Regarding the media, there's nothing wrong with the president and the media having an adversarial relationship and in fact I think that's the norm. But I wouldn't describe a president attacking the media as promoting free speech.

checkyoursudo 8y ago

While I am not sure how plausible it is that US gets there, it certainly feels like some sort of authoritarian dictatorship is still possible. Democracy is only as good as our institutions, and a lot of institutions seem to be struggling. Checks and balances require the separate branches to be willing to apply them. With the apparent lack of any meaningful oversight by the legislature, it does not seem like the checks and balances are working very effectively. I suppose that's a strong reason why many (including myself) prefer divided governments, so that adversaries can keep each other from going too far. I don't remember where I read it, but something like this rings true: the founders anticipated authoritarians seeking power, but they did not anticipate legislators allowing it. Edit: I don't mean to say that Trump becoming a dictator in the US is possible; I think that's extremely unlikely. I simply mean that there is a weakness in the US political system when government is controlled entirely by one party, and that this weakness could possibly be exploited some day.