5 ms·

It's interesting how fast political ideology goes out the window. Here we have the Republicans fighting for increased government regulation of private businesse

It's interesting how fast political ideology goes out the window. Here we have the Republicans fighting for increased government regulation of private businesses, while Democrats are arguing it's unconstitutional and violates "free speech".

balls187 2y ago
Rather, in the US, politics is mostly based on keeping yourself elected, and political ideologies are pretty much lip service. In reality, both sides all just serve at the pleasure of the elite. What I love about Trump (despite never having a desire to votefor him) is he makes no attempt to hide that, often times going so far as to rub the political class' noses in it.
- lallysingh 2y ago
  Yes, this. Ideologies follow demographics of likely voters, that's it. They're the worm on the hook, not the objective.
- maxwell 2y ago
  Not at all—more lucrative to say what people want to hear, raise a bunch of money, and lose, than it is to get in office and need to violate your campaign promises to appease the donors with steering influence. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/s-happens-candidates-leftover-money-rcna57340 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/s-ha...
- netsharc 2y ago
  > he makes no attempt to hide that Does he not? His speeches promise a "great America again!" to the conned masses, when the reality it's "Put me back into power so I can stay out of jail, and grift, for another 4 years at least.". It would be interesting if one could put an actual "what I actually want" translator next to Trump like in this sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAK9QRe4ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAK9QRe4ds .. not that the conned masses would hear it and get a "Wow! He's a conman!" moment; they've projected onto him their hopes, dreams, and the idea that he will be the one to avenge their angers. (BTW In Obama's post-presidential book he lamented about the same thing in 2008, that his voters were placing their hopes of all sorts of change on him, and that his campaign/supporters were inadvertendly creating cult-of-personality around him.)
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > In Obama's post-presidential book he lamented about the same thing in 2008, that his voters were placing their hopes of all sorts of change on him I wonder why they did that. It's almost like he built his entire campaign on the promise that electing him would bring hope/change.
    - techostritch 2y ago
      I get it’s threading the needle and people en masse aren’t going to understand nuance, but I don’t think his point was that electing him would bring hope/change, I think it was a call for America to remember it can change. I don’t think “I have faith we can change but don’t put your faith in me” has the same ring to it as a campaign slogan.
candiddevmike 2y ago
> Here we have the Republicans fighting for increased government regulation of private businesses While in the same breath removing regulatory oversight by revoking Chevron
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  I guess this is now the established view of the Chevron decision, by being repeated thousands of times. But the actual decision is just that when there is no clear rule in the law, the federal agency can no longer unilaterally decide what they want it to be.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    If congress didn't want the federal agency to have agency then they would've been more specific with the law. Quite literally those agencies can decide what is available for judges to review. > [1] to define the scope of judicial review. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    When the federal agency hasn't been explicitly given a specific àla cart power by an increasingly disfunctional congress, courts are no longer expected to defer to the expertise of the federal agency when it seems reasonable to the court and seems to reasonably follow the powers congress has enumerated. eta: I like to think of it in terms of "implied powers". So, the previous standard was that if Congress says the police are allowed to fine people for speeding, the courts should probably assume that the police are allowed to measure people's speed. Now congress is expected to explicitly state everything the police are allowed to do, e.g. congress has to say The city is allowed to set speed limits. Speed limits are a maximum speed you are allowed to go. If you go faster than the speed limit, you are breaking the law. Police are allowed to measure your speed. Police are allowed to record your speed. Police are allow to compare their measured recording of your speed to the speed limit, to determine whether or not you were speeding. If police determine that you were speeding, they are allowed to fine you. The police are allowed to fine you greater amounts if you break the speed limit by greater quantities If the police fine you, they are allowed to take money from you If the police fine you, and you don't pay it, you are breaking the law. Previously if they said "The city can, at their discretion, manage speeds for the safety of all concerned, and use the police for enforcement", the rest was implied. Now it's not.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I think it’s the establishment democrats that benefit most. Social media has been targeting left extremists alongside right wingers for a long time. The less exposure progressives get, the less red meat the establishment needs to throw to them.
tgv 2y ago
(European social-democrat here) I don't think state regulation of private business is an ideology in itself. It's not an all or nothing choice. You may want it for some aspects, not for others. Social democrats tend to use regulation to protect little folk, conservatives see it as a power tool.
- lliamander 2y ago
  > conservatives see it as a power tool. That is not an accurate statement of the conservative view of government regulation. I think a more accurate description of the difference would be to look at Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations theory, and in particular how the political left and the political right understand the idea of "fairness"[1]. I think it is our ideas about fairness that primarily drive the different views of regulation. What is that difference? Well, as you said about social democrats, I think that people on the left view regulation primarily as a way to protect the little guy. Conservatives see it as a way to ensure that rewards are proportional to one's contribution and merit. [1]https://moralfoundations.org/ https://moralfoundations.org/
  - tgv 2y ago
    I agree I used the word conservatives too loosely, mainly to avoid the word "liberal". Indeed, there are ideological conservatives. However, they are few. Very few: it's a bit of an intellectual thing. In the political right, they are vastly outnumbered by other movements. Large factions among those are economic (European, not US) liberals, populists, and authoritarians. None of these have morals of contribution and merit.
dfxm12 2y ago
It sounds like you think Republicans are in general against government regulation. However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. Republicans say they are pro small government, but their actions clearly prove otherwise. Also, trying to strong arm the media is well within the Republican political ideology, especially under the guidance of their current presidential nominee.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lliamander 2y ago
  > However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. No one (except certain strains of anarchists) is against laws restricting "big" crimes like murder, theft, etc. Regardless of how you think about it, Republicans tend to think of abortion as murder, and so it is perfectly consistent to constrain that behavior while still being against government regulation broadly speaking. Now, I'm not going to try and convince you that abortion is murder, I'm just saying your accusation of Republican hypocrisy is not convincing at all. > Republicans say they are pro small government, but their actions clearly prove otherwise. I would say that Republican politicians are much more comfortable with big government than the average voter that supports them.
  - orwin 2y ago
    So if they believe abortion is murder, they actually have to punish it like it really is. So with years in prison for the woman, the supporting husband, the nurses and the MD. To be clear, I do not think it is murder. But if I did, I would try to send to prison all participants. Not doing so seems philosophically weak, not quite hypocritical, but really self-serving or delusional 'look, those are murderers, a small fine and an administrative slap on the wrist seems enough'. I respect the opinion 'capital punishment/life sentence for any abortion, even in case of incest, rape, or unviable fœtus' way more, even if I find it unhinged. At least they are consistent.
bee_rider 2y ago
Free speech isn’t a stance owned by either party in particular. Both parties broadly support the idea that the government shouldn’t sanction speech, but also the right to not associate with particular individuals depending on the sorts of things they say. There’s variation in the sorts of things that might make members of either party think you are a bad person for saying them, or for associating with people who say them.
lliamander 2y ago
As a conservative I definitely disagree Republicans pushing such legislation, though I sympathize with the need to respond to what appears to be a systematic attempt to control the discourse. The right strategy is a two pronged approach: The first (and most important) is to address government pressure, and to establish strong First Amendment protections against Congress and federal agencies from putting their thumb on the scale. This unfortunately failed in Murthy v. Missouri, but since it was rejected for reasons of standing rather than on statutory grounds, I think there is good reason to think this could succeed in the future (especially because there is prior precedent stating that the government cannot pressure private actors to do anything the government itself does not have the power to do directly). The second approach is to focus on how Section 230 is enforced. Section 230 grants broad immunity to social media companies to engage in content moderation without liability (as it should) but I think we need to establish what is meant by "good faith" moderation. The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections, and possibly be considered an unfair business practice (and thus subject to civil litigation). I think this would be in the best interests of all social media users of every political stripe. And none of this would prevent social media companies from systematically suppressing conservative content as "disinformation", but it would prevent them from doing so surreptitiously or under pressure from the government.
- beej71 2y ago
  > The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. We're also giving the power to the government to rescind 230 and I don't doubt for a moment that an administration could find reason to do so particularly for media sites it doesn't appreciate... Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion.
autoexec 2y ago
> while Democrats are arguing it's unconstitutional and violates "free speech". Protecting free speech has been the ideology of democrats for ages. The Free Speech Movement was fought by those on the left side of the political spectrum.
- calibas 2y ago
  Ideology of some Democrats, certainly not all... https://www.salon.com/2024/05/02/jewish-groups-decry-passage-of-bill-defining-criticism-of-israel-as-antisemitism_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2024/05/02/jewish-groups-decry-passage...
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Sad to see that had as much support as it did. I'm glad at least that the ACLU knew better

balls187 2y ago

Rather, in the US, politics is mostly based on keeping yourself elected, and political ideologies are pretty much lip service. In reality, both sides all just serve at the pleasure of the elite. What I love about Trump (despite never having a desire to votefor him) is he makes no attempt to hide that, often times going so far as to rub the political class' noses in it.

lallysingh 2y ago
Yes, this. Ideologies follow demographics of likely voters, that's it. They're the worm on the hook, not the objective.
maxwell 2y ago
Not at all—more lucrative to say what people want to hear, raise a bunch of money, and lose, than it is to get in office and need to violate your campaign promises to appease the donors with steering influence. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/s-happens-candidates-leftover-money-rcna57340 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/s-ha...
netsharc 2y ago
> he makes no attempt to hide that Does he not? His speeches promise a "great America again!" to the conned masses, when the reality it's "Put me back into power so I can stay out of jail, and grift, for another 4 years at least.". It would be interesting if one could put an actual "what I actually want" translator next to Trump like in this sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAK9QRe4ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAK9QRe4ds .. not that the conned masses would hear it and get a "Wow! He's a conman!" moment; they've projected onto him their hopes, dreams, and the idea that he will be the one to avenge their angers. (BTW In Obama's post-presidential book he lamented about the same thing in 2008, that his voters were placing their hopes of all sorts of change on him, and that his campaign/supporters were inadvertendly creating cult-of-personality around him.)
- autoexec 2y ago
  > In Obama's post-presidential book he lamented about the same thing in 2008, that his voters were placing their hopes of all sorts of change on him I wonder why they did that. It's almost like he built his entire campaign on the promise that electing him would bring hope/change.
  - techostritch 2y ago
    I get it’s threading the needle and people en masse aren’t going to understand nuance, but I don’t think his point was that electing him would bring hope/change, I think it was a call for America to remember it can change. I don’t think “I have faith we can change but don’t put your faith in me” has the same ring to it as a campaign slogan.

candiddevmike 2y ago

> Here we have the Republicans fighting for increased government regulation of private businesses While in the same breath removing regulatory oversight by revoking Chevron

BurningFrog 2y ago
I guess this is now the established view of the Chevron decision, by being repeated thousands of times. But the actual decision is just that when there is no clear rule in the law, the federal agency can no longer unilaterally decide what they want it to be.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  If congress didn't want the federal agency to have agency then they would've been more specific with the law. Quite literally those agencies can decide what is available for judges to review. > [1] to define the scope of judicial review. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  When the federal agency hasn't been explicitly given a specific àla cart power by an increasingly disfunctional congress, courts are no longer expected to defer to the expertise of the federal agency when it seems reasonable to the court and seems to reasonably follow the powers congress has enumerated. eta: I like to think of it in terms of "implied powers". So, the previous standard was that if Congress says the police are allowed to fine people for speeding, the courts should probably assume that the police are allowed to measure people's speed. Now congress is expected to explicitly state everything the police are allowed to do, e.g. congress has to say The city is allowed to set speed limits. Speed limits are a maximum speed you are allowed to go. If you go faster than the speed limit, you are breaking the law. Police are allowed to measure your speed. Police are allowed to record your speed. Police are allow to compare their measured recording of your speed to the speed limit, to determine whether or not you were speeding. If police determine that you were speeding, they are allowed to fine you. The police are allowed to fine you greater amounts if you break the speed limit by greater quantities If the police fine you, they are allowed to take money from you If the police fine you, and you don't pay it, you are breaking the law. Previously if they said "The city can, at their discretion, manage speeds for the safety of all concerned, and use the police for enforcement", the rest was implied. Now it's not.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

I think it’s the establishment democrats that benefit most. Social media has been targeting left extremists alongside right wingers for a long time. The less exposure progressives get, the less red meat the establishment needs to throw to them.

tgv 2y ago

(European social-democrat here) I don't think state regulation of private business is an ideology in itself. It's not an all or nothing choice. You may want it for some aspects, not for others. Social democrats tend to use regulation to protect little folk, conservatives see it as a power tool.

lliamander 2y ago
> conservatives see it as a power tool. That is not an accurate statement of the conservative view of government regulation. I think a more accurate description of the difference would be to look at Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations theory, and in particular how the political left and the political right understand the idea of "fairness"[1]. I think it is our ideas about fairness that primarily drive the different views of regulation. What is that difference? Well, as you said about social democrats, I think that people on the left view regulation primarily as a way to protect the little guy. Conservatives see it as a way to ensure that rewards are proportional to one's contribution and merit. [1]https://moralfoundations.org/ https://moralfoundations.org/
- tgv 2y ago
  I agree I used the word conservatives too loosely, mainly to avoid the word "liberal". Indeed, there are ideological conservatives. However, they are few. Very few: it's a bit of an intellectual thing. In the political right, they are vastly outnumbered by other movements. Large factions among those are economic (European, not US) liberals, populists, and authoritarians. None of these have morals of contribution and merit.

dfxm12 2y ago

It sounds like you think Republicans are in general against government regulation. However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. Republicans say they are pro small government, but their actions clearly prove otherwise. Also, trying to strong arm the media is well within the Republican political ideology, especially under the guidance of their current presidential nominee.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lliamander 2y ago
> However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. No one (except certain strains of anarchists) is against laws restricting "big" crimes like murder, theft, etc. Regardless of how you think about it, Republicans tend to think of abortion as murder, and so it is perfectly consistent to constrain that behavior while still being against government regulation broadly speaking. Now, I'm not going to try and convince you that abortion is murder, I'm just saying your accusation of Republican hypocrisy is not convincing at all. > Republicans say they are pro small government, but their actions clearly prove otherwise. I would say that Republican politicians are much more comfortable with big government than the average voter that supports them.
- orwin 2y ago
  So if they believe abortion is murder, they actually have to punish it like it really is. So with years in prison for the woman, the supporting husband, the nurses and the MD. To be clear, I do not think it is murder. But if I did, I would try to send to prison all participants. Not doing so seems philosophically weak, not quite hypocritical, but really self-serving or delusional 'look, those are murderers, a small fine and an administrative slap on the wrist seems enough'. I respect the opinion 'capital punishment/life sentence for any abortion, even in case of incest, rape, or unviable fœtus' way more, even if I find it unhinged. At least they are consistent.

bee_rider 2y ago

Free speech isn’t a stance owned by either party in particular. Both parties broadly support the idea that the government shouldn’t sanction speech, but also the right to not associate with particular individuals depending on the sorts of things they say. There’s variation in the sorts of things that might make members of either party think you are a bad person for saying them, or for associating with people who say them.

lliamander 2y ago

As a conservative I definitely disagree Republicans pushing such legislation, though I sympathize with the need to respond to what appears to be a systematic attempt to control the discourse. The right strategy is a two pronged approach: The first (and most important) is to address government pressure, and to establish strong First Amendment protections against Congress and federal agencies from putting their thumb on the scale. This unfortunately failed in Murthy v. Missouri, but since it was rejected for reasons of standing rather than on statutory grounds, I think there is good reason to think this could succeed in the future (especially because there is prior precedent stating that the government cannot pressure private actors to do anything the government itself does not have the power to do directly). The second approach is to focus on how Section 230 is enforced. Section 230 grants broad immunity to social media companies to engage in content moderation without liability (as it should) but I think we need to establish what is meant by "good faith" moderation. The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections, and possibly be considered an unfair business practice (and thus subject to civil litigation). I think this would be in the best interests of all social media users of every political stripe. And none of this would prevent social media companies from systematically suppressing conservative content as "disinformation", but it would prevent them from doing so surreptitiously or under pressure from the government.

beej71 2y ago
> The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. We're also giving the power to the government to rescind 230 and I don't doubt for a moment that an administration could find reason to do so particularly for media sites it doesn't appreciate... Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion.

autoexec 2y ago

> while Democrats are arguing it's unconstitutional and violates "free speech". Protecting free speech has been the ideology of democrats for ages. The Free Speech Movement was fought by those on the left side of the political spectrum.

calibas 2y ago
Ideology of some Democrats, certainly not all... https://www.salon.com/2024/05/02/jewish-groups-decry-passage-of-bill-defining-criticism-of-israel-as-antisemitism_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2024/05/02/jewish-groups-decry-passage...
- autoexec 2y ago
  Sad to see that had as much support as it did. I'm glad at least that the ACLU knew better