Ascendancy: As popular or vital sources such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Google and other Internet giants continue to censor, ban outright and delete information -- much of it dealing, strangely enough, with politically conservative issues -- the drumbeat continues for government intervention. This may indeed be required, but not to the extent some would prefer.
Facebook's Zuckerberg and others are said to almost be salivating at the prospect of government-induced action, perhaps resulting in making larger institutions smaller. Wha...?
The explanation for what seems bizarre thinking on the part of those who might be most affected by a comprehensive government inquiry apparently comes down to a basic framework: That government attempts to exert regulation and further control over the Internet's major players would actually allow the giants to consult and help write the regs, and in so doing could either tie up in endless red tape or simply exclude potential competition.
Why is government almost destined to address social media issues? According to legal minds, social media hosts are defined as either platforms or publications. Platforms allow free and open thought, but Web sites which allow people to freely post communications but then engage in editing in any form meet the criteria as publications -- and Internet publications, unlike platforms, apparently lose a considerable degree of government protection.
Whatever the legal ramifications, immense changes may come to social media, but we hope Congress won't allow major players to call the shots, inadvertently assisting a colossus in becoming an even bigger threat to freedom of speech. How do you make things fair? Probably by having no government regulation at all.
Commercial TV as a bright shiny object: Summer is almost here in North America and, we must say, commercial television stations have rarely placed before viewers a more vacuous or fetid platter of choices. From glittering quiz shows dependent upon gimmicks and forgettable celebrities to multiple sing-offs no more meaningful than sequential jerk-off sessions, to sexual hog-calling episodes disguised as Beautiful People soap operas scrounging for marriage mates, all of it reflects the slow-motion suicide of TV as we once knew this household staple. Recent determinations suggesting that millennials have little or no money to purchase sponsor products may plant the kiss of death on what little movement remains of commercial TV's actual brain-inspired programming. It's enough to make viewers long for the return of video porn arcades.
Hong Kong rebuffs China, good luck with that: A million fearful Hong Kong residents took to the streets to protest proposed legislation allowing suspects of "crimes" to be sent to mainland China for questioning (or is that interrogation?). We wish we could find a million or even 500 brains among Bernie Sanders supporters which would make them rise up to refuse his attempts to make us the new Venezuela-in-ruins via his desired presidency.
Which reminds me to ask myself -- if I had a choice of gaining membership in either the Center for American Progress or the American Communist Party, which would I logically choose? Never mind, I don't think it matters.
Lara Logan confirms what everybody should know: Former CBS News foreign correspondent Lara Logan remarked on Fox News last February that the liberal media basically runs the journalism show: “Any journalists who are not beating the same drum and giving the same talking points,” she related, “pay the price” for not joining the liberal crowd. As an independent voice in the profession, Logan has become a target of the leftist media -- no surprises there.
Down on the border: We hope long-time Democrats recognize the monster which has consumed their party in 2020 when the choice is either Trump or an evolving leftist creature which has the power to destroy the country. . . for real. What rational entity would allow one million-plus invaders to cross the border, bringing diseases, poverty, no skills and an attitude very much NOT American?
