/biz/ - Business & Finance

You, your Tucker , dominos and Disney lol

>>19740351
Firstly, get it through your head that the US is not a capitalist country. It is a socialist country for certain classes and those deemed to either be too important, or who have dirt on too many other people. Funny how things become "too big to fail" when you deliberately go out of your way to not give people any agency of their payment infrastructure; when you deliberately create bureaucracy for the sake of job creation, or to protect against "terrorism" (rather than not instigating violence through financially reasoned foreign intervention); or when you subsidize certain companies or don't closely monitor their antitrust behaviors, suddenly magically leading to monopolies and corruption, all which is ignored through lobbying or sweet job offers to the right people.

Neutrality and hearing out all sides is closer to a free market ideology than not funding someone because of some political agenda.

piece of shit faggot, leader of neckbeard white supremacist cult

>>19740908
>a non-free market is more free than a free market because of current year emotions

>>19741686
You're trying to straw man the argument for neutrality into being against your version of a free market, where politicians and corporations tell you how think.

>>19741780

No, what you want is for politicians to tell corporations what to think and how to spend their money.

Your feelings are hurt so you want to violate peoples first amendment.

>NOOOOO BUSINESSES CAN’T JUST SPEND THEIR MONEY HOW THEY WANT TO!

How is NPR still a thing? Why the fuck do they deserve government money when they're so blatantly biased?

>>19742147

Fuck off, I don’t see Fox broadcasting classical music. I don’t like the tranny SJW stuff either but NPR is like the last lifeline the general public has in this country to real culture.

>>19742087
Think about the outcome of doing everything you can to make sure that only one side is portrayed (or portrayed in a "positive" way), without any ability for any other side to rebut.

When you do that, you dishonestly manipulate and craft public opinion according to an agenda. How is that remotely anything near to a free market?

>>19742187

So you want the government to buy air time on tucker or something? Why don’t you start a business and buy some ads? Again, you’re just butthurt that businesses are Doing something you don’t like.

>>19742187

Relax, I doubt this is actually hurting Tucker as the advertisers are just moving to different programs on fox.

>>19742163
I had no idea Fox was publicly funded

>>19742238
>>19742246
I'm not actually a supporter of Tucker, btw. Fox news is part of the same problem with agendas, but I support neutrality. And don't just blow off this issue with agendas as not actually being a massive issue. Remember, we've just gone from "stay inside, or you're to kill people" to "nevermind, it's okay to protest because asymptomatic people don't spread it, and you're outdoors anyway, lol". And If you're making this thread because you saw a previous thread on here to do with Tucker Carlson losing ad funding, you would've noticed a post pointing out the hypocrisy of certain corporations/business leaders coming out in support of these protests, despite having business practices that may actually partly lead to the issues that black people, or any lower socioeconomic group, have. It is either disingenuous shallow pandering, or worse, trying to act on a agenda.

>>19742163
>2 hours of classical music at 9pm is worth 22 hours of propaganda by people who literally joined communes to play communism for the summer

i don't understand why people are cheering on these corporations when they were associated with him in the first place? why would they do that?
ah, i guess it's back to no one asks questions anymore

>>19742187
>without any ability for any other side to rebut
That is absolutely not the case, tucker can start his own fucking media company if he wants to (and I'm sure he can afford it)
There is no way the government can realistically require companies sponsor certain media shows or companies even if it's in the name of neautrality. It doesn't make sense and it's not the role of government

>>19743860
I don't like how this is being framed as "the government must require this is or that", this was mentioned here too:>>19742238. The problem is that certain political groups and corporations are acting to dissuade people from certain views on the rioting/protests. They are capable of shaping public opinion by doing this, which can lead to changes in how people vote, or for them to not question certain law changes/new laws, as they'll view them as justified. More government influence is not the solution, as that leads to even more dangerous scenarios, with perhaps the federal government deciding the news, and would lead to further erosions of freedom of the press.

All of this has stemmed from a police action that we still don't have clear details on (such as why the cop initially felt he may have needed to do that, whether or not it was part of his training to do so, whether or not drugs played a role in how Floyd responded to being knelt on). By not giving context, by not being neutral (by allowing others to voice their view), you rile up a mob of people who will do more damage than good, to, both, their community's property and their rights.

And, yes, anyone could go form their own podcast or some kind of news business, but I am someone who is saying that being neutral is preferable, so I won't agree with the idea that politicians and corporations can influence how people can think on issues (which can influence their rights), without hearing out as many sides as they can.

>>19744525
everybody trying to influence the public opinion one way or another has an agenda, and that agenda is there to always serve their own interest, nothing more nothing less.

The only difference with what's happening to the media now as opposed to what we were used to in the past is that now they are not even trying to hide their agendas anymore. Something which has been the realm of tin foil hat consipracy theorists in the not so distant past is a matter of fact today. News outlets and businesses are now openly political and they all have unashamedly dropped any last resemblance of pretense of neutrality.

A brave new world out there.

>>19744525
>unlike you dumdums i have a fence post stuck up my ass

>>19744608
Yes, influencing people has always been a thing, but try to see that I'm talking about it in the context of the current situation we're in, which you have mentioned. But being superfluous just takes away from the point that an agenda does appear to be being pushed.

>>19744634
The whole point of this thread was, OP pretending that political agenda pushing was a rigorous symbol of a free market. My argument is that neutrality, un this context, would be closer to a free market.

Also, I'm not interested with Mr MIGA, if that's what you're angry about.

Conspiracy tards need to stop referencing a whimsical past that never existed. Do you think the media was more free b4 the internet? When people had even less options? Crying about precedence, as if its not already the fucking standard.

Fox, CNN, and MSNBC basically had a monopoly on political discussion before the internet was big.

Based Jon Stewart would call them out too, unlike Trevor Noah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAL5rMu8N5Y

>>19740351
>free speech bad

>>19744783
I believe some of you guys are too far removed from the impacts of what's going in, therefore, you'll have an attitude of claiming "conspiracy". Millions are out of their jobs, violent rioting and protests, historical revisionism. You better believe people are calling out the institutions for misrepresenting things and putting things out of context.

This will lead to drastic law changes and shifts in political views that will impact our lives. Sitting back and just saying "oh well", is one to respond, but don't expect everyone else to do that.

>>19744848
>unironic use of NPC wojack

>>19744880
>This will lead to drastic law changes and shifts in political views that will impact our lives.

Ha, I remember being an idealistic college-aged young person myself.

>>19745174
Contact tracing will be necessary to gain a better understanding of whether or not someone who's an asymptomatic carrier can infect others
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/932246
>There has been confusion about whether people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who do not have symptoms can transmit to others. In fact, we do have evidence that individuals without symptoms can spread the virus. This is the likely reason why SARS-CoV-2 has been harder to contain than its relative, SARS-CoV. Nonetheless, it is hard to detect this type of transmission, and it is even harder to measure how frequently it occurs.
>We need better contact tracing data and more testing and follow-up of people without symptoms to sort this out. It is important to remember that this is a new virus. There is still a lot of uncertainty, and it is hard to communicate this level of uncertainty to the general public. But we know that people infected who aren't exhibiting symptoms can inadvertently transmit the virus to others, and so our policies and actions must reflect this.
Takes this tone because a WHO spokesperson said asymptomatic carriers may not spread the virus (conveniently after the riots/protests started)

Example of the Minnesota Police using a form of contract tracing to monitor protestors:
https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2020/06/police-use-contact-tracing-and-big-tech.html
>"According to Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harringon, officials there have been using what they describe, without going into much detail, as contact-tracing in order to build out a picture of protestor affiliations — a process that officials in the state say has led them to conclude that much of the protest activity there is being fueled by people from outside coming in."
This is interesting because while it's an invasion of privacy, it adds to the case that provocateurs were/are involved in these riots/protests, which is significant because it adds to the idea that there is an underlying agenda

>>19745733
Many US states are considering mandatory vaccines, this article is about mandatory covid-19 vaccinations for the entire US:
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/05/28/state-bar-calls-for-mandatory-covid-19-vaccinations-regardless-of-objections/?slreturn=20200516021843

>>19745782
Sorry, link didn't work
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2020/05/28/state-bar-calls-for-mandatory-covid-19-vaccinations-regardless-of-objections/?slreturn=20200516021843

>>19742087
>implying politicians are not corporations unto themselves

>>19745782
There are airlines, who did things like share buybacks when times were good, who are getting bailed out. The Fed is buying high yield debt from in order see investors and shitty companies. There are stable companies who have taken advantage of the payroll protection program: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/05/coronavirus-bailout-covid-ppp-paycheck-protection-program-corporations..

In some countries, people have been able to defer payment on loans (like mortgages) but interest still accrues, meaning they've essentially increased the how much they'll have to pay to their bank, overall.

Tech companies have now gained a stronger foothold, as competition gets killed off (my point on small businesses). And you could get covid-19 while in a small business, but not while waiting in line for some massive supermarket chain or when ordering something from McDonald's.

This whole thing has disproportionately impacted the lower and middle classes. This may lead to more extreme anti-establishment political leanings in the years to come.

>>19745782
There are airlines, who did things like share buybacks when times were good, who are getting bailed out. The Fed is buying high yield debt from in order see investors and shitty companies. There are stable companies who have taken advantage of the payroll protection program: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/05/coronavirus-bailout-covid-ppp-paycheck-protection-program-corporations..

In some countries, people have been able to defer payment on loans (like mortgages) but interest still accrues, meaning they've essentially increased how much they'll have to pay to their bank, overall.

Tech companies have now gained a stronger foothold, as competition gets killed off. And you could get covid-19 while in a small business, but not while waiting in line for some massive supermarket chain or when ordering something from McDonald's.

This whole thing has disproportionately impacted the lower and middle classes which may lead to more extreme anti-establishment political views in the years to come.

>>19745841
(This is post is a summary of some of the financial impacts of lockdowns).

>>19745782
There's also a lot of speculation happening over the sorts of identification that may be used when it comes to determining whether or not someone has had the vaccine (whether that be microchiping/stamping or something else).

There may also be pushes for less use of physical cash, which may lead on to things like cashless societies or government issued digital currencies (which may tie into inflation that may be coming, due to central bank printing and/or stagflation).