Tag Archives: ethics

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Three Leftist parties in Germany want to change—to “strengthen”—the nation’s online hate speech law: the Free Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Left Party.  (FDP claims to be a libertarian-leaning, classical liberal party, but with this move, it exposes itself as being Modern Liberal.)

The current law requires social media companies to police themselves regarding posts someone—anyone—flags as offensive.  This is too much free speech, however.

[FDP General Secretary Nicola] Beer said Germany needed a law similar to the one the FDP proposed before Christmas that would give an “appropriately endowed authority” the right to enforce the rule of law online rather than give private companies the right to determine the illegality of flagged content.

“Appropriately endowed.”  Government, or a government sanctioned and guided facility, will “determine the illegality” of the speech.  Because Government Knows Better.

This is the Europe our own Left wants us to emulate.  This is the censorship college and university management, professors, and snowflakes want us to implement.

This is part of the Big Government that the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to inflict on us as part of their general Government intrusion into private lives push.

Facebook Revamp?

Posted on by
Reply

Christopher Mims had a piece on this, that Facebook MFWIC Mark Zuckerberg says he’s interested in doing.  Mims opened his article with an important question:

So here’s the multibillion-dollar question: is Mr Zuckerberg willing to sacrifice revenue for the well-being of Facebook’s two billion-plus users?

Unfortunately, his piece centered on the potentially addictive nature of Facebook (among other virtual, interactive social media).  Important as money is to running a business, and important as addiction is to handle, Mims missed a number of larger questions—which bear on addiction, but not exclusively so.

  1. making sure that time spent on Facebook is time well spent Whose definition of “time well spent?” Is Facebook going to dictate that to its users?
  2. encourage meaningful social interactions Whose definition of “meaningful?” Is Facebook going to dictate that, too?
  3. push us away from harmful ways of using the service Whose definition of “harmful?” Will Facebook dictate that to users, going beyond the possibly addictive nature to other definitions convenient to Facebook?
  4. steps include [what] Facebook…believes will reduce engagement on the service, including hiding click bait and fake news Whose definition of “click bait?” Of “fake news?” How will Facebook prove it’s not merely censoring? It already has been exposed as having an unbalanced coterie of “content moderators” who censor what they personally view as unacceptably conservative.

All of this, also, elides Facebook’s well-known lack of concern for user privacy, invading it at will for “business” purposes.

The Veteran’s Choice Program

Posted on by
Reply

This is a program that would give veterans the option of going to a private sector doctor in lieu of playing the delay wait game at a Veterans Administration facility, after the veteran has jumped through the requisite VA hoops.  After a political tussle in Congress over increasing/renewing its funding, some additional money was provided.  That additional funding was necessitated because

its popularity depleted the allocated funds more quickly than anticipated. Patient visits through the program increased more than 30% in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, according to the VA.

Extra points for those of you who can say why the program is so popular.

Despite the success of this limited program, the Progressive-Democrats in Congress want to get rid of it.  Congressman Mark Takano (D, CA), for instance,

argued on the House floor in July that it’s a “mistaken belief that the private sector is better equipped to care for our nation’s veterans than specialized VA doctors.” But while the VA provides high-quality specialized care in certain areas, for the most part veterans’ needs are similar to everyone else’s.

Indeed.  Takano and his fellow Progressive-Democrats just want to maintain control over OPM. It’s a mistaken belief that the private sector cannot care for our nation’s veterans better than specialized VA doctors. As Burgess and Cleland (authors of the piece at the link) note, mostly our veterans’ needs are similar to everyone else’s.

Those few specialized needs unique to a veteran’s particular military history? The VA’s specialists, functioning in the private sector, can deal with those at least as well as they do now, and probably better and faster without the VA’s bureaucratic impediments.

Make the Veteran’s Choice Program functionally universal: privatize the VA, and use its current and what would have been its future budgets for veterans’ vouchers.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

The Gentleman Doth Protest Too Much?

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Mark Warner (D, VA), Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says President Donald Trump better not fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or else.

I believe it is up to every member of this institution, Republican or Democrat, to make a clear and unambiguous statement that any attempt by this president to remove Special Counsel Mueller from his position or to pardon key witnesses in any effort to shield them from accountability or shut down the investigation would be a gross abuse of power and a flagrant violation of executive branch responsibilities and authorities[.]

Which, of course, it would not be; none of that and not at all.  It might be bad optics, it might be bad politics, but each of those worried about actions is entirely legitimate, as well as legal, and wholly within the purview of a President to do.  Every single one of them.  Warner knows this.

In recent days, the president said he is not considering removing Special Counsel Mueller. But the president’s track record on this front is a source of concern. I’m certain that most of my colleagues believed that he wouldn’t fire Jim Comey either[.]

Now he’s both pretending the two are related.  Comey was fired, not only for his failure to perform, but for his deliberate misperformance.  Recall Comey’s confession of his illegal leaking to a friend, explicitly for the purpose publication in the press for the explicit purpose of influencing—getting created—his friend Mueller’s independent investigation.  Or is Warner suggested Comey’s and Mueller’s situation really are related?

And

The charges that some have made that somehow Democratic political bias have crept into this investigation or baseless, given the makeup of the leadership team.
…
In recent weeks, much has been made of some political opinions expressed by an FBI agent during the election last year.  This line of argument conveniently ignores the fact that as soon as Mr Mueller learned about these comments he immediately removed that agent in question from the investigation.

Warner’s line of argument ignores the fact that Mueller knew all along of the agent’s comments: he was the one who vetted, or approved the vetting, of the agent, and Mueller was the one who hired him.  Mueller didn’t remove the agent when he learned of the comments; he removed the agent when those comments became public via a FOIA request.  Why is Warner so afraid of what this agent might testify to if held to account?

If anything this incident only adds to Mr Mueller’s credibility as a fair and independent investigator.

On the contrary, this incident only further damages Mueller’s credibility.

Warner has done a mighty lot of protesting in support of a cynically erected straw man.  Of what is Warner so afraid in his Progressive-Democratic Party that Congressional investigations, proceeding without regard for Mueller’s performance, might discover?  Of what is he so afraid regarding his own behavior that might be discovered?  Why is he so desperate to distract from those investigations?

Free Speech Turkey-Style

Posted on by
Reply

Enes Kanter, a Center for the New York Knicks, has expressed his opinion of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and a Turkish prosecutor has indicted him in absentia for this heinous crime and wants Kantor jailed for four years.  Among other things, Kantor has said that Erdogan is the “Hitler of our century,” in the aftermath of the Turkish government’s revocation of his passport and its having forced his father, still in Turkey, to disown him—and then was thrown into jail, anyway.  All because Kanter supports the equally Erdogan-hated Islamic preacher Fethullah Gulen.

Here’s Kanter:

People don’t understand. They’re saying your family is still back in Turkey — why are you doing all of this? Why are you talking? I’m just trying to be the voice of all of these innocent people, man.  Because all of these innocent people are just going through really tough times. Journalists, innocent people in jail getting tortured and killed and kidnapped. And it’s pretty messed up. And (the government) hates it. They hate when I talk to you guys in front of all of these cameras, these microphones. They hate it. That’s why they’re saying, “Oh, we’re going to take his dad away, we’re going to put him in prison.”

In response to the indictment and jail threat, here’s Kanter again:

That’s it? Only four years?  All the trash I’ve been talking?

And

I have said less than that honorless (man) deserves. Add another 4 years for me, master.

Here’s to Enes Kanter.

Oh, and I say that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is an idiot and a tin despot.