4 ms·

Let us not forget that Facebook has enabled in a way a form of direct democracy. Subversive globalist players without any moral compass (such as George Soros an

by ayyyyylmao2000 8y ago

Let us not forget that Facebook has enabled in a way a form of direct democracy. Subversive globalist players without any moral compass (such as George Soros and Hillary Clinton, whose foundation connections are being interrogated as we type) are just angry that they lost in a long time. George Soros frequently propagates propaganda via his Open Society Foundations about the dangers of Facebook. Because he lost. No wonder it is being attacked.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
And to be fair, the same can be said about the Koch brothers.
austincheney 8y ago
> George Soros frequently propagates propaganda via his Open Society Foundations I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but so what if he does? He is a private person and you don't have to consume his politics just as I don't consume his political opinions or consume any trash on Facebook. It is the nature of liberty that people are allowed to express opinions you find offensive.
- cf141q5325 8y ago
  It becomes problematic if it is used to lobby for political change with private funding as a magnifier. Once you start to pump so much money into political movements, you can co-opt and change them. You get to drown some currents and magnify others by simply providing infrastructure and funding. It can be as simple as providing a speaker system to a protest and deciding who gets to use it. Its a question common to campaign contribution and whether super PACs are to be considered free speech.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    > It can be as simple as providing a speaker system to a protest and deciding who gets to use it. That isn't a problem. Private individuals are not required to abide by a fairness standard when it comes to speech. Taken a step further talk radio stations are often extremely right wing are not required to fairly convey an alternate position. I am fine with that because as a consume I am not forced to consume it.
    - cf141q5325 8y ago
      Multiple radio stations exist in parallel and you dont have to listen to any of them. Once you put up one speaker system at a location, like a central park that is the focus of a protest, you drown out everyone else. You are in control of the communication infrastructure and bought yourself an authority position. The question of who is providing and controlling infrastructure is a real threat to protest movements, as it is easily possible to co-opt a political movement through funds this way. We have clear limits on what lobbying is allowed to do and what kind of interference in a democratic system through funds is prohibited. Take vote buying as an extreme example or simply the ordinary regulations over campaign financing. We dont have that clear cut rules for what is acceptable in the case of non parliamentary political movements. Calling the targeted funding and co-opting of political movements problematic is appropriate in my opinion.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

And to be fair, the same can be said about the Koch brothers.

austincheney 8y ago

> George Soros frequently propagates propaganda via his Open Society Foundations I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but so what if he does? He is a private person and you don't have to consume his politics just as I don't consume his political opinions or consume any trash on Facebook. It is the nature of liberty that people are allowed to express opinions you find offensive.

cf141q5325 8y ago
It becomes problematic if it is used to lobby for political change with private funding as a magnifier. Once you start to pump so much money into political movements, you can co-opt and change them. You get to drown some currents and magnify others by simply providing infrastructure and funding. It can be as simple as providing a speaker system to a protest and deciding who gets to use it. Its a question common to campaign contribution and whether super PACs are to be considered free speech.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > It can be as simple as providing a speaker system to a protest and deciding who gets to use it. That isn't a problem. Private individuals are not required to abide by a fairness standard when it comes to speech. Taken a step further talk radio stations are often extremely right wing are not required to fairly convey an alternate position. I am fine with that because as a consume I am not forced to consume it.
  - cf141q5325 8y ago
    Multiple radio stations exist in parallel and you dont have to listen to any of them. Once you put up one speaker system at a location, like a central park that is the focus of a protest, you drown out everyone else. You are in control of the communication infrastructure and bought yourself an authority position. The question of who is providing and controlling infrastructure is a real threat to protest movements, as it is easily possible to co-opt a political movement through funds this way. We have clear limits on what lobbying is allowed to do and what kind of interference in a democratic system through funds is prohibited. Take vote buying as an extreme example or simply the ordinary regulations over campaign financing. We dont have that clear cut rules for what is acceptable in the case of non parliamentary political movements. Calling the targeted funding and co-opting of political movements problematic is appropriate in my opinion.