Friday Sync-Up: How Worried Are You?

Every Friday, I present a topic or question for our merry band of thinkers, leaders, ...

By
37

Every Friday, I present a topic or question for our merry band of thinkers, leaders, and pirates to discuss in an open thread. Here is this week’s conversation starter:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why?

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
37
By
Comments (37)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Greenacreguy

    Yes. I believe Facebooks 300 million was used to swing the election. Read what the Heritage Foundstion says about it.

    Collapse
  2. KenA

    Yes, privacy was lost years ago with so many transactions on line from banking to health care. The threat to our freedoms are as real as if we were in a real war.
    The amount of wealth amassed by a few is staggering and their ability to use it to influence our elections is as dangerous as any enemy nation in the world. It’s obvious if you pay attention, it requires little research to know it. They control a huge amount of the media and now have assumed the power to censor speech right down to an individual level.
    To win this war on our rights in my opinion it will require six primary objectives.
    Control the amount of money that any citizen can donate to a political Party or politicians and limit to individual citizens only. No collections by anyone except the political Party or the politician.
    End the ability for PAC’s, other organizations and other methods that are used to support or advertise on behalf of a political Party or politician.
    Limit the ability of all social media sites used by USA citizens to censoring only what is against the law and hold them responsible for any misuse.
    Ensure each state establishes rules on voting and equipment to prevent voter fraud and improve accuracy and hold those responsible who fail to comply via law suits for abridging the rights of citizens.
    All funds to support state elections must be from citizens of the state, no funds from citizens of other states.
    With the exception of opinion articles or shows identified as opinion shows, media outlets can not be allowed to endorse any political Party or politician, how can you be unbiased in reporting the news and endorse either.

    To address the free speech issue for other organizations or individuals, allow advertising for or against a specific issues only, all advertisements must identify the organization and can not in any way support a political Party or politician.
    In other words if you are against tires on cars I’D your self or organization and state your case on any media you wish. I would also suggest that any of these organizations be required to identify any person providing up to or more than 33% of the funds.

    A fantasy, likely but we must get things back in control of we the people, not the government or a few oligarchs. There are many more issues no doubt.

    Collapse
    1. Anonymous

      Collapse
      1. KenA

        My thinking was if you limit donations to citizens only and limit the amount it would prohibit all other donations. I could have more clearly stated it, but that was my intention. Donations only from a citizen and limit the total per election.

        Collapse
  3. Jack

    I agree. We can be attacked from without or within. Big Tech is the biggest threat from within. The problem with being attacked from withn is, they are closer. This means typically the attack will be quicker. Now I know in a world where the difference between quick and slow can be measured in nano-seconds, "quicker" may seem to make no difference, but not everything runs through highspeed internet, especially being cancelled.

    Collapse
  4. GesWho

    Big Tech captures a lot of personal data. Sensoring individuals, groups and small business is no big deal to them. Some have all ready sold their soul against the United States.

    Collapse
  5. Donald David Courtney

    Threatening a God-given right is never a solution to social ills or injustices. Speech never causes destruction of property or humans; humans do that.

    Abridgment of our speech freedom is wrong and money and power and technological expertise and power only exacerbate and co-exist with the wrong.

    The fact that no one person or group is doing anything about the threats is appalling.

    Stuff like this whereby we vent is not good enough because it is part of the threateners’ plans.

    Thwarting those plans will require a level of fortitude uncommon in the USA Today; further, it will require a willingness to die and potentially kill.

    Go figure. Did the planners know about these consequences or are they “unintended?”

    Collapse
  6. Dave King

    Considering the reach and behavior of big tech, it is very concerning going forward what may transpire as technology continues to advance. A socialist government would use the power to severely oppress the people.

    Collapse
  7. Daniel F Sopher

    Power corrupts.

    Collapse
  8. JimmyinTEXAS

    I agree with the statement. Judging by their actions of "punishing" conservative thought while being perfectly content with a radical ideology like Iran's ayatollah, there doesn't seem to be any other choice.

    Collapse
  9. Big Shirl

    In WW II there was the Axis of Evil - Italy and Germany. Their opponents: Allies: US, England, France. It is not just big tech, but they are allied with the Democratic party and main stream media.

    Collapse
  10. RCB

    Absolutely!!

    Collapse
Load More