EV Tax Incentive [closed due to political discussions]

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarinCT

Well-known member
First Name
Darin
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
60
Reaction score
72
Location
California
Vehicles
M3, CT triM
Country flag
...

Mark Zuckerberg is on record of saying that he envisioned FB as evolving into more of a utility, like the phone company. Increasingly, we use it as a communications platform, perhaps even our primary communications platform. If it is to be such a platform, like our phone line or our mail service or our internet access, it needs to be unbiased. If I use my phone to hire a hitman to kill someone, I should be charged. If I use it to discuss things that are not illegal - no matter how unpleasant - I'm still allowed to use my phone. My speech is not regulated.

The big example of this topic is, of course, the recent banning of Trump from Twitter, FB, Insta, Youtube, App and Google stores, etc. By all accounts he hasn't done anything illegal - though that's up for debate - but he's been silenced. These are private companies, they're allowed to do that. But should they be able to? Perhaps it's time for communications laws to be updated with the time, and FB, etc, should not be allowed to regulate such content much like ATT can't listen in on your calls and turn off your phone if it doesn't like what you say. As Elon recently tweeted, "A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech being the de facto arbiter of free speech."

...
Surprise! It's already in motion.

Section 230 sets the limitations and requirements of communications platforms. If they play within lines, they can't be sued. Trump asked corporate tool FCC commisioner Ajit Pai to change the rules via a 2020 executive order. Pai didn't do anything about it. Sen. Hawley (R-Mo.) , yes that Hawley, introduced legislation to restrict the platforms "ability" to censure a.k.a. legal responsibility, it did not pass. The Democrats have also taken shots at Section 230 saying that the communications platforms aren't doing enough to stop harassment and misinformation. Biden has even said it should be repealed.

If there's a repeal, chances are good there will be bipartisan support, but my suspicion is that the proposal would be for a modification to the responsibilities of the platforms which won't fly for the Republicans. Dimes to dollars, the platforms will simply (mostly) comply with the law in the area that maximizes profit.

YMMV





Advertisement

 

Dids

Well-known member
First Name
Les
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
1,316
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicles
04 Tacoma, 21 Cybertruck
Occupation
Self
Country flag
Everyone knows that, that's basic. What is concerning to many, is the removal of the ability to speak. It is one thing to say using freedom of speech to commit crimes should be punished. It's also one thing to say using freedom of speech to say mean or awful things makes me dislike you, or not want to do business with you. It's another to say I don't like what you say, so you will no longer be able to say it. This is new territory, and it's exceedingly dangerous.

Mark Zuckerberg is on record of saying that he envisioned FB as evolving into more of a utility, like the phone company. Increasingly, we use it as a communications platform, perhaps even our primary communications platform. If it is to be such a platform, like our phone line or our mail service or our internet access, it needs to be unbiased. If I use my phone to hire a hitman to kill someone, I should be charged. If I use it to discuss things that are not illegal - no matter how unpleasant - I'm still allowed to use my phone. My speech is not regulated.

The big example of this topic is, of course, the recent banning of Trump from Twitter, FB, Insta, Youtube, App and Google stores, etc. By all accounts he hasn't done anything illegal - though that's up for debate - but he's been silenced. These are private companies, they're allowed to do that. But should they be able to? Perhaps it's time for communications laws to be updated with the time, and FB, etc, should not be allowed to regulate such content much like ATT can't listen in on your calls and turn off your phone if it doesn't like what you say. As Elon recently tweeted, "A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech being the de facto arbiter of free speech."

What's weird to me is that the idea of free speech has become a "right" value in recent years. I've always thought of freedom from the norm as being a "left" trait, whether it was freedom to be gay, freedom to use profane language, freedom to dance... whatever it may be, it was traditionally "right" people that wanted conformity. Now, in the last 10 years I've observed a startling shift where "left" people are increasingly looking to shut up dissenting opinions, "cancel" them, etc. As a moderate, it increasingly weighs in my opinions. I think you're seeing it in a lot of similar thinkers, Elon being one of them. They may not agree with "right" ideals, but agree with the right to have them.
But Facebook is less like a phone company and more like a newspaper. Broadcast media has always had limits on what it could broadcast and the same is true for print. No one is saying that Trump can't email all his supporters and he has not been silenced. He was on TV today.
 

TheLastStarfighter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
133
Reaction score
314
Location
Canada
Vehicles
Dodge Challenger
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
Surprise! It's already in motion.

Section 230 sets the limitations and requirements of communications platforms. If they play within lines, they can't be sued. Trump asked corporate tool FCC commisioner Ajit Pai to change the rules via a 2020 executive order. Pai didn't do anything about it. Sen. Hawley (R-Mo.) , yes that Hawley, introduced legislation to restrict the platforms "ability" to censure a.k.a. legal responsibility, it did not pass. The Democrats have also taken shots at Section 230 saying that the communications platforms aren't doing enough to stop harassment and misinformation. Biden has even said it should be repealed.

If there's a repeal, chances are good there will be bipartisan support, but my suspicion is that the proposal would be for a modification to the responsibilities of the platforms which won't fly for the Republicans. Dimes to dollars, the platforms will simply (mostly) comply with the law in the area that maximizes profit.

YMMV
I honestly thought it was humorous that Trump wanted it repealed, seeing as it would mean they would be harsher on him, but repealing with new measures would make sense I guess.
 

TheLastStarfighter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
133
Reaction score
314
Location
Canada
Vehicles
Dodge Challenger
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
But Facebook is less like a phone company and more like a newspaper. Broadcast media has always had limits on what it could broadcast and the same is true for print. No one is saying that Trump can't email all his supporters and he has not been silenced. He was on TV today.
Actually it's not. A broadcast company creates its content. FB sells a means for users to create their own content. FB is more like a phone company, or utility, which sells a means to communicate. And that's from Zuckerberg himself, not me.

https://techland.time.com/2013/11/17/of-course-facebook-is-a-utility/
 

FutureBoy

Well-known member
First Name
Reginald
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
521
Reaction score
657
Location
Kirkland WA USA
Vehicles
Toyota Sienna
Occupation
Private Lending Educator
Country flag
It's quite easy to determine who is rich. I think we all agree that the rich should pay more taxes and clearly the people who should pay more taxes are any people who have more than you do. Voila!
I'm not sure everyone agrees that the rich should pay more taxes. There are many poor people I know (many of them my relatives) that vociferously espouse that rich people should not be taxed very much because it gives them an incentive to work harder which results in a better economy and somehow this is supposed to trickle down to the rest of us poor folks. And when I say poor folks, I mean that most of these people (in the moment I am thinking of specific relatives of mine here) are lower middle class, have worked all their lives in manual labor of one sort or another, and never had the gumption to work any harder than their standard manual labor job for 40 hours. I'm not sure how much this trickle idea actually works in real life. I certainly haven't seen any benefit from the trickle unless you count the occasional golden shower.

But those are my relatives. Die-hard set in their ways. Not going to change their views.
 

happy intruder

Well-known member
First Name
O. K.
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
26
Location
Irvine
Vehicles
Model 3 Jun 2019..... Model S Jan 2020
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
They will increase the carbon tax to offset the lost of tax revenue.
more than likely...but California has already increased EV registration fees equillavent to 12k miles driven for loss of gas tax....I think there is a push here to get back the $7500 ev incentive...hope they do.....that would go far in reducing the cost of my tri-motor....hehehe......
 

happy intruder

Well-known member
First Name
O. K.
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
26
Location
Irvine
Vehicles
Model 3 Jun 2019..... Model S Jan 2020
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
But Facebook is less like a phone company and more like a newspaper. Broadcast media has always had limits on what it could broadcast and the same is true for print. No one is saying that Trump can't email all his supporters and he has not been silenced. He was on TV today.
maybe so....but just wait til you say something they dont like and get banned or restricted for a time....
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
2,245
Reaction score
2,309
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
The rule Trump wanted removed, shields hosts from being sued for the existence user-created content they're unaware of.

In other words, it would mean that platforms would have to shut down his account much, much sooner when they discovered he was promoting fraudulent statements which they'd be held liable for.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

-Crissa
 

happy intruder

Well-known member
First Name
O. K.
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
26
Location
Irvine
Vehicles
Model 3 Jun 2019..... Model S Jan 2020
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
The rule Trump wanted removed, shields hosts from being sued for the existence user-created content they're unaware of.

In other words, it would mean that platforms would have to shut down his account much, much sooner when they discovered he was promoting fraudulent statements which they'd be held liable for.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

-Crissa
tell that to the people (hosts) in congress that lie....they just can not be prosecuted because they are in congress.....and of course, that is assuming people's statements can be proven to be false.....trial by jury is the only way I know to handle those cases......trial without a hearing or witness dont prove anything except to show bias no matter which side of the river your on....
enough......have a great evening
 
Last edited:

Dids

Well-known member
First Name
Les
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
1,316
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicles
04 Tacoma, 21 Cybertruck
Occupation
Self
Country flag
Actually it's not. A broadcast company creates its content. FB sells a means for users to create their own content. FB is more like a phone company, or utility, which sells a means to communicate. And that's from Zuckerberg himself, not me.

https://techland.time.com/2013/11/17/of-course-facebook-is-a-utility/
Yes I understand that Zuckerberg would like to think of it that way. But Facebook is free. It doesn't sell a connection. It sells user data and advertising ( CNN does this,, is it an utility?) A utility sells a commodity like electricity which the user pays for or cell service or water etc. Many utilities historically have had price controls and have been prohibited from monopoly, but the exact opposite is true for internet companies, they have enjoyed tax and liability benefits to promote internet development.
 

Dids

Well-known member
First Name
Les
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
1,316
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicles
04 Tacoma, 21 Cybertruck
Occupation
Self
Country flag
maybe so....but just wait til you say something they dont like and get banned or restricted for a time....
This site has removed several of my posts and yelled at me. It has rules and I broke them. It is someone else's site and they get to make the rules. Eventually they might ban me because I keep breaking the rule, but this is my community and I value the thoughts of the people who share them even if I don't agree. I don't think they will ban me because everyone on here deviates from CT topic because we have pretty much explored every possible thought and there is nothing left until new news. Thank goodness boomtrooper makes videos of factory being built because other than political arguments nothing else is going on.
 

TheLastStarfighter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
133
Reaction score
314
Location
Canada
Vehicles
Dodge Challenger
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
Yes I understand that Zuckerberg would like to think of it that way. But Facebook is free. It doesn't sell a connection. It sells user data and advertising ( CNN does this,, is it an utility?) A utility sells a commodity like electricity which the user pays for or cell service or water etc. Many utilities historically have had price controls and have been prohibited from monopoly, but the exact opposite is true for internet companies, they have enjoyed tax and liability benefits to promote internet development.
A utility is, by definition, an entity that provides infrastructure for a public service. A broadcast network is is a group of television stations or outlets, that form an agreement to air, or broadcast, content from a centralized source. How they generate revenue is irrelevant; television could use ads, or they could use public funds or subscriptions. The important difference is that a utility provides a tool while a broadcaster or media provide content. Facebook without its users is an empty void. I log in to see what my old high school friend is up to these days, to share pics of the kids with the grandparents, or to use it -and its messenger service - to arrange a get together for Saturday night. It is very much a communications platform, and as such the screening of its content is exceedingly dangerous.
 

TheLastStarfighter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
133
Reaction score
314
Location
Canada
Vehicles
Dodge Challenger
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
The rule Trump wanted removed, shields hosts from being sued for the existence user-created content they're unaware of.

In other words, it would mean that platforms would have to shut down his account much, much sooner when they discovered he was promoting fraudulent statements which they'd be held liable for.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

-Crissa
That's the part I found hilarious with his stance. I'm not sure he fully understood the law...
 

Dids

Well-known member
First Name
Les
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
778
Reaction score
1,316
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicles
04 Tacoma, 21 Cybertruck
Occupation
Self
Country flag
A utility is, by definition, an entity that provides infrastructure for a public service. A broadcast network is is a group of television stations or outlets, that form an agreement to air, or broadcast, content from a centralized source. How they generate revenue is irrelevant; television could use ads, or they could use public funds or subscriptions. The important difference is that a utility provides a tool while a broadcaster or media provide content. Facebook without its users is an empty void. I log in to see what my old high school friend is up to these days, to share pics of the kids with the grandparents, or to use it -and its messenger service - to arrange a get together for Saturday night. It is very much a communications platform, and as such the screening of its content is exceedingly dangerous.
Failure to screen its content is also exceedingly dangerous. Ask the Rohingya who suffered a genocide or the United States who suffered an insurrection. If Facebook is just a communications tool how come it has an algorithm to feed content? They literally call it a feed, how does it feel to be fed?
 

TheLastStarfighter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
133
Reaction score
314
Location
Canada
Vehicles
Dodge Challenger
Occupation
Engineer
Country flag
Failure to screen its content is also exceedingly dangerous. Ask the Rohingya who suffered a genocide or the United States who suffered an insurrection. If Facebook is just a communications tool how come it has an algorithm to feed content? They literally call it a feed, how does it feel to be fed?
Quite lousy, to be honest. My Facebook feed has become quite bland. I used to get a variety, now it seems the same posters pop up all the time and not even the ones I enjoy the most. These algorithms are also questionable in their ethics. They are screening users viewpoints.

If an insurrection was actually planned on FB, why wasn't it reported to authorities to prepare or take action? As I said, a communications medium should report illegal activity to proper authorities. It's not that your words shouldn't have consequence, it's that you should still be able to speak your words. And people will always be able to speak. If FB and other outlets ban the discussion, people will go underground and find other ways. I prefer these things to be in the open where we can be aware and possibly intervein.
 

Advertisement

Status
Not open for further replies.




 


Advertisement
Top