4 ms·

I agree with the left on so many issues -- and have voted for them consistently for a few decades -- but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party

I agree with the left on so many issues -- and have voted for them consistently for a few decades -- but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party of censorship and limits on free speech. It's telling that they are now the party that is overly cozy with the largest, most-powerful companies on the planet. The Democratic Party has been moving away from the original meaning of "liberal" for a long time -- but supporting mega-corps censoring journalism must be the final confirmation that this is no longer a liberal party.

Semiapies 6y ago
Ted Cruz, known leftist and Democrat...
- nostromo 6y ago
  leftist != liberal Democrat != liberal ... that's the point. On this issue, Cruz is indeed more liberal than Schatz.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    And yet he opposes net neutrality. His position is inconsistent here. He is self-serving, not liberal in any sense.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      His position is inconsistent, yes, and so is anyone who supports net neutrality but thinks Twitter should be able to block legal user content on their platform. On many issues Democrats have the liberal position, but in a growing number of areas, Republicans have the liberal position. Neither is ideologically pure and both are self-serving.
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        I disagree with your first conclusion. It depends on how you view Twitter. If you view Twitter as a service provider, then net neutrality rules should be applied to them as well. But if you view them as a platform, they're distinct and ought to have greater control. Like a forum, should net neutrality proponents argue against moderators like dang here on HN to be consistent? That's absurd. But Ted Cruz (and others) are trying to argue that Twitter should be considered closer to a service provider (and thus remain "neutral", whatever that means here) than a platform/publisher (which can control its content more). But Ted Cruz also argues that net neutrality proponents are "snowflakes" and net neutrality is wrong. It would be funnier if the consequences weren't so potentially severe.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Are there any examples of where the issues that fall under network neutrality have resulted in unavoidable censorship (higher charges would not apply, since the option to pay higher fees does exist, regardless of whether it is "fair" or not).
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). Content they block can be accessed through other means. Net neutrality, however, applies to the operators who can (effectively) bar access short of finding a separate provider. Examples of things net neutrality would bar would be slowing/blocking Bittorrent connections (traffic shaping), slowing competitors (Netflix), etc. And those things have happened and likely will continue to happen without net neutrality legislation.
        mistermann 6y ago
        > Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). "Can't really censor anything", except what they can (and do, with a rather heavy lean to one political side) censor: arguably one of the top two "popular information" dissemination platforms on the planet. The same goes for Facebook, and YouTube, if to differing degrees. The same may also be happening within mainstream newspapers and TV news, but due to the nature of those businesses, any censorship that may be occurring is less discoverable (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). > Content they block can be accessed through other means. Can be, in theory - whether it actually is (as compared to the alternate scenario of if it had not been censored on the major platforms), is unknown (due to the discoverability issue, difficulty in finding it (search engine "optimizations", deplatforming), additional effort, etc). It may seem like it isn't unknown (the sense of omniscience that comes with human consciousness), but it actually is unknown. What I really enjoy about these types of conversations is the somewhat disingenuous ~"can't see the elephant in the room" nature. It is not complicated to realize that if censorship occurs on a platform, then therefore dissemination and consumption of the information will decrease (that's the whole point of it)...yet if one observes conversations on HN, I'd say at least a good third of the comments are written as if the reader genuinely doesn't realize this. That's perfectly fine of course, free speech and all that, but it's really fascinating to consider from a human psychology/neurology perspective. Even more fun is "breaking the 4th wall" of forums by pointing out this meta-pespective, and then observing replies that seem as if they literally hadn't seen that portion of the comment.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Isn't that circular reasoning? You descry "the left" and Democrats on the basis of this story, which is about a right-wing Republican, and when called out you say, yeah, but he's acting like a left-wing Democrat. Well, no, he's acting like himself, a right-wing Republican, who is upset and trying to exert control over Twitter. This has nothing to do with Democrats.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      You're using "Democratic" and "liberal" as synonymous terms when they're not; one is an ideology and one is a party. Just because a Democrat does something doesn't make it liberal -- and in fact, they've been moving away from liberalism for quite some time. It's funny how in continental Europe, if you tell people you're a liberal they'll think you're a free-market, small-government, pro-civil-liberties type. That's because our definitions in America have changed as the parties have changed. We've entangled ideology (liberalism) with a party (Democratic) to the point where people will call anti-liberal positions liberal simply because the Democratic Party has espoused it. The same is true of "conservatism" and "Republican" of course.
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        You're on a thread about a United States Senator, a Republican who is consistently measured as very far to the right in the US, and you keep bringing up things like "liberal" and "Democrats" and talking about Europe. Your insistence on labeling behaviors using terms that don't apply in the context in which those behaviors are taking place seems unhelpful to me. Again, this is about a Republican US Senator shouting at the CEO of Twitter, a US company. No Democrats were involved at all until you started talking about them.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        Let's see, who has been mixing up political positions and parties, shall we? > I agree with the left on so many issues -- and have voted for them consistently for a few decades -- but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party of censorship and limits on free speech. It's telling that they are now the party that is overly cozy with the largest, most-powerful companies on the planet. See that? "the left" has "become the party" of things not actually evident. They are "the party" that is somehow cozy with Twitter, although again, I don't see how a Republican yelling at a company's CEO necessarily means the other party supports that company.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party of censorship and limits on free speech In this quote of yours, what does “the party” refer to?
pksebben 6y ago
we really gotta disambiguate some terms, here. Bernie is a leftist. Biden is a liberal. Hillary was / is neoliberal (which you could also peg biden as, and which we used to call neoconservative). The democratic party is, on a good day, liberal but actually neoconservative. That is to say: Leftist : power to the people. pro social programs, pro election reform, held of the belief that unchecked markets lead to unchecked evil. Liberal: pro regulation, socially left. don't-rock-the-boat political and economic mentality. pro middle class, pro tax neoconservative / neoliberal: let the markets run free, deregulate the banks, remove capital gains taxes and push tax burden down the chain to the working class. extremely permissive business laws. heavy focus on socially liberal policies like gun regulation, abortion, and gay rights because it makes for a wonderful distraction while their wall street buddies rob everyone blind and deaf. please stop clumping leftists in with the rest. we hate that shit. there are barely any leftist politicians, and the democratic party spends most of it's time trying to get them to shut up. we're as mad about it as anyone else.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  I totally agree with this (moving more from DSA territory recently to anarchist communism, myself) I have a feeling that the lincoln project's goal is not just to get Trump out, but actually to instigate a coup within the dem party, give up some on abortion/2a to keep the neoliberal / centrist status quo. Mark my words in ten years, the dems will move more right, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kasich and Romney as democrats. The left will be regrouping, and the far right, well they'll be hiding from the FBI mostly (at least the terrorist factions). I mean, think about it. The dems are the epitomy of Reagan republicans. If you wanted to reboot the insanity that is Trumpism, all you'd need to do is get a significant number of fiscal republicans to become democrats, and run as democrats, and maybe embrace a 'few' social programs to 'appear' democrat enough.
  - pksebben 6y ago
    ...I would argue that this has already happened. Consider the Green New Deal - absolutely a leftist document. Half the Democratic party immediately jumped down AOC's throat and jumped on the "come on, be reasonable" bandwagon. Not so many years ago, our candidate was Gore. Gore could have written the GND himself. There is no party for the left. There is center and right and (currently in the white house) extreme right. Which we're now calling alt-right, while there's absolutely nothing 'alt' about it.

Semiapies 6y ago

Ted Cruz, known leftist and Democrat...

nostromo 6y ago
leftist != liberal Democrat != liberal ... that's the point. On this issue, Cruz is indeed more liberal than Schatz.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  And yet he opposes net neutrality. His position is inconsistent here. He is self-serving, not liberal in any sense.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    His position is inconsistent, yes, and so is anyone who supports net neutrality but thinks Twitter should be able to block legal user content on their platform. On many issues Democrats have the liberal position, but in a growing number of areas, Republicans have the liberal position. Neither is ideologically pure and both are self-serving.
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      I disagree with your first conclusion. It depends on how you view Twitter. If you view Twitter as a service provider, then net neutrality rules should be applied to them as well. But if you view them as a platform, they're distinct and ought to have greater control. Like a forum, should net neutrality proponents argue against moderators like dang here on HN to be consistent? That's absurd. But Ted Cruz (and others) are trying to argue that Twitter should be considered closer to a service provider (and thus remain "neutral", whatever that means here) than a platform/publisher (which can control its content more). But Ted Cruz also argues that net neutrality proponents are "snowflakes" and net neutrality is wrong. It would be funnier if the consequences weren't so potentially severe.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Are there any examples of where the issues that fall under network neutrality have resulted in unavoidable censorship (higher charges would not apply, since the option to pay higher fees does exist, regardless of whether it is "fair" or not).
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). Content they block can be accessed through other means. Net neutrality, however, applies to the operators who can (effectively) bar access short of finding a separate provider. Examples of things net neutrality would bar would be slowing/blocking Bittorrent connections (traffic shaping), slowing competitors (Netflix), etc. And those things have happened and likely will continue to happen without net neutrality legislation.
      - mistermann 6y ago
        > Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). "Can't really censor anything", except what they can (and do, with a rather heavy lean to one political side) censor: arguably one of the top two "popular information" dissemination platforms on the planet. The same goes for Facebook, and YouTube, if to differing degrees. The same may also be happening within mainstream newspapers and TV news, but due to the nature of those businesses, any censorship that may be occurring is less discoverable (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). > Content they block can be accessed through other means. Can be, in theory - whether it actually is (as compared to the alternate scenario of if it had not been censored on the major platforms), is unknown (due to the discoverability issue, difficulty in finding it (search engine "optimizations", deplatforming), additional effort, etc). It may seem like it isn't unknown (the sense of omniscience that comes with human consciousness), but it actually is unknown. What I really enjoy about these types of conversations is the somewhat disingenuous ~"can't see the elephant in the room" nature. It is not complicated to realize that if censorship occurs on a platform, then therefore dissemination and consumption of the information will decrease (that's the whole point of it)...yet if one observes conversations on HN, I'd say at least a good third of the comments are written as if the reader genuinely doesn't realize this. That's perfectly fine of course, free speech and all that, but it's really fascinating to consider from a human psychology/neurology perspective. Even more fun is "breaking the 4th wall" of forums by pointing out this meta-pespective, and then observing replies that seem as if they literally hadn't seen that portion of the comment.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Isn't that circular reasoning? You descry "the left" and Democrats on the basis of this story, which is about a right-wing Republican, and when called out you say, yeah, but he's acting like a left-wing Democrat. Well, no, he's acting like himself, a right-wing Republican, who is upset and trying to exert control over Twitter. This has nothing to do with Democrats.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    You're using "Democratic" and "liberal" as synonymous terms when they're not; one is an ideology and one is a party. Just because a Democrat does something doesn't make it liberal -- and in fact, they've been moving away from liberalism for quite some time. It's funny how in continental Europe, if you tell people you're a liberal they'll think you're a free-market, small-government, pro-civil-liberties type. That's because our definitions in America have changed as the parties have changed. We've entangled ideology (liberalism) with a party (Democratic) to the point where people will call anti-liberal positions liberal simply because the Democratic Party has espoused it. The same is true of "conservatism" and "Republican" of course.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      You're on a thread about a United States Senator, a Republican who is consistently measured as very far to the right in the US, and you keep bringing up things like "liberal" and "Democrats" and talking about Europe. Your insistence on labeling behaviors using terms that don't apply in the context in which those behaviors are taking place seems unhelpful to me. Again, this is about a Republican US Senator shouting at the CEO of Twitter, a US company. No Democrats were involved at all until you started talking about them.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      Let's see, who has been mixing up political positions and parties, shall we? > I agree with the left on so many issues -- and have voted for them consistently for a few decades -- but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party of censorship and limits on free speech. It's telling that they are now the party that is overly cozy with the largest, most-powerful companies on the planet. See that? "the left" has "become the party" of things not actually evident. They are "the party" that is somehow cozy with Twitter, although again, I don't see how a Republican yelling at a company's CEO necessarily means the other party supports that company.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party of censorship and limits on free speech In this quote of yours, what does “the party” refer to?

pksebben 6y ago

we really gotta disambiguate some terms, here. Bernie is a leftist. Biden is a liberal. Hillary was / is neoliberal (which you could also peg biden as, and which we used to call neoconservative). The democratic party is, on a good day, liberal but actually neoconservative. That is to say: Leftist : power to the people. pro social programs, pro election reform, held of the belief that unchecked markets lead to unchecked evil. Liberal: pro regulation, socially left. don't-rock-the-boat political and economic mentality. pro middle class, pro tax neoconservative / neoliberal: let the markets run free, deregulate the banks, remove capital gains taxes and push tax burden down the chain to the working class. extremely permissive business laws. heavy focus on socially liberal policies like gun regulation, abortion, and gay rights because it makes for a wonderful distraction while their wall street buddies rob everyone blind and deaf. please stop clumping leftists in with the rest. we hate that shit. there are barely any leftist politicians, and the democratic party spends most of it's time trying to get them to shut up. we're as mad about it as anyone else.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gremlinsinc 6y ago
I totally agree with this (moving more from DSA territory recently to anarchist communism, myself) I have a feeling that the lincoln project's goal is not just to get Trump out, but actually to instigate a coup within the dem party, give up some on abortion/2a to keep the neoliberal / centrist status quo. Mark my words in ten years, the dems will move more right, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kasich and Romney as democrats. The left will be regrouping, and the far right, well they'll be hiding from the FBI mostly (at least the terrorist factions). I mean, think about it. The dems are the epitomy of Reagan republicans. If you wanted to reboot the insanity that is Trumpism, all you'd need to do is get a significant number of fiscal republicans to become democrats, and run as democrats, and maybe embrace a 'few' social programs to 'appear' democrat enough.
- pksebben 6y ago
  ...I would argue that this has already happened. Consider the Green New Deal - absolutely a leftist document. Half the Democratic party immediately jumped down AOC's throat and jumped on the "come on, be reasonable" bandwagon. Not so many years ago, our candidate was Gore. Gore could have written the GND himself. There is no party for the left. There is center and right and (currently in the white house) extreme right. Which we're now calling alt-right, while there's absolutely nothing 'alt' about it.