Uh oh, better scrub that social media history

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wishoot said:
What if we were allowed to check THEIR search history before they were elected.....
Click to expand...

You might need eye bleach afterwards. You might also find some searches of Nuremberg Laws from these clowns.

My worry is Google is developing censorship algorithms for the Chinese in order to reenter the Chinese market. The Chinese are also working on applying social credit model that rates individuals similar to a credit rating but on "social and political reliability" for use in determining jobs, security clearances, privileges to relocate, etc. In the trust and security councils adopted by Twitter, Google, Facebook, and the like, the rudiments of separating good people and bad people based on wrongthink is present. All that it takes to impose a technological solution to bad think in the U.S. would be a ruthless government elected by a hapless electorate that really should know better.

It is always the situation that some officeholders, or even via majoritarian popular vote, seek to abridge individuals' natural rights on speech, assembly, trial by jury, privacy, liberty, due process, ownership of firearms, etc. They will always come in the guise of "doing good" for society and directing societal attention to society's disfavored, not for their individual actions--good or ill, but because those faceless members of a bad group must be punished for their future bad tendencies to benefit societial harmony and growth.

Constant vigilance, political participation, and hearty mockery/shaming of such individuals is the only cure to preserve our rights.
 
boom boom said:
You might need eye bleach afterwards. You might also find some searches of Nuremberg Laws from these clowns.

My worry is Google is developing censorship algorithms for the Chinese in order to reenter the Chinese market. The Chinese are also working on applying social credit model that rates individuals similar to a credit rating but on "social and political reliability" for use in determining jobs, security clearances, privileges to relocate, etc. In the trust and security councils adopted by Twitter, Google, Facebook, and the like, the rudiments of separating good people and bad people based on wrongthink is present. All that it takes to impose a technological solution to bad think in the U.S. would be a ruthless government elected by a hapless electorate that really should know better.

It is always the situation that some officeholders, or even via majoritarian popular vote, seek to abridge individuals' natural rights on speech, assembly, trial by jury, privacy, liberty, due process, ownership of firearms, etc. They will always come in the guise of "doing good" for society and directing societal attention to society's disfavored, not for their individual actions--good or ill, but because those faceless members of a bad group must be punished for their future bad tendencies to benefit societial harmony and growth.

Constant vigilance, political participation, and hearty mockery/shaming of such individuals is the only cure to preserve our rights.
Click to expand...
Your post has been catalogued and flagged, citizen.
Please report to the nearest reeducation center for adjustment.

We apologize for the inconvenience, thank you for your cooperation.
 
boom boom said:
Silly, probably unconstitutional proposal from NY politicians that would have social media posts and search histories checked before allowing firearm purchases.

https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/...-would-allow-social-media-checks-gun-purchase
Click to expand...
Businesses already do this prior to hiring. People put all kinds of stupid stuff on Facebook.

There would be a looooong debate as to the legality, then an even looooooonger debate about how the decision would be made to deny a purchase, and an even loooooooonger debate on what would constitute a reason to deny. Not to mention who makes the decision.
 
I've always had plenty of family on social media so I've never had too much trouble keeping myself in line, amazing what thinking before responding can do.

To the subject at hand I do wonder just how possible this is even to try. Have to turn in every internet handle with you CCW#? For some that would be quite the list to include, be easier to just bring a print off. Do forums like this count as social media?
 
somethingbenign said:
I've always had plenty of family on social media so I've never had too much trouble keeping myself in line, amazing what thinking before responding can do.

To the subject at hand I do wonder just how possible this is even to try. Have to turn in every internet handle with you CCW#? For some that would be quite the list to include, be easier to just bring a print off. Do forums like this count as social media?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
rodregier said:
On the flip side, you really shouldn't be posting stuff on social media that you wouldn't post on a public corkboard that your mother might read.
Click to expand...
Social media posts are obviously public and your advice is sound, however internet search histories should remain private, save for a search warrant signed by a judge.
 
Walkalong said:
Businesses already do this prior to hiring. People put all kinds of stupid stuff on Facebook.

There would be a looooong debate as to the legality, then an even looooooonger debate about how the decision would be made to deny a purchase, and an even loooooooonger debate on what would constitute a reason to deny. Not to mention who makes the decision.
Click to expand...

Not quite true regarding debate in NY state legislature when they want to pass something, the SAFE act was rammed through quickly. That is how things like the 7 round limit applied to existing larger capacity magazines was stuffed in there. A lot of these ideas are floated simply to have the text ready for the next "crisis" from a mass shooting event. What will be interesting will the techlords response to this. If they favor it, then they have enough money to ram it through somewhere.
 
boom boom said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Meant that to be rhetorical but thanks for emphasising my point that this wouldn't just be Facebook, Twitter, and whatever other sites there are out there. If we think a year waiting period for NFA items is bad I'd hate to see how long this check will take.
 
There is a reason that I believe that government (e.g. bureaucrats) must be constrained by shall issue type language regarding permits. That way, only concrete specified criteria can be used to deprive someone of something and it is easier to challenge irrational behavior in court. When bureaucrats know that they can be challenged (no weasel words like "good reason", "hate speech" etc.) they tend to behave better because of consequences. Otherwise, they feel free to engage their personal biases into matters of public governance. Imagine a government depriving someone of a Chik Filet restaurant license because the SPLC has labeled them a "hate organization."

Even in the last few days, on Nov. 2nd, 2018 the 1st Circuit in Boston ruled that you have no effective 2A rights outside of the home if the local governments do not approve.

"In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted)."

The local regulations in Mass by Brookline and Boston that "an applicant furnish some information to distinguish his own need for self-defense from that of the general public."

And the state law allows localities to add all sorts of restrictions to some but not all licenses based on the discretion of the issuing authority.

From the opinion:
"This requirement —which is the focal point of the plaintiffs' challenge — means that
the applicant must identify a specific need, that is, a need above and beyond a generalized desire to be safe."

Thus, the chief of police has the authority to dictate how your right might be exercised based on their judgment of whether your "need" is valid. Imagine such applied to the First Amendment on your free speech. This creeping bureaucratic authoritarian government treatment of its citizens as subjects is what I fear.
 
There would be a looooong debate as to the legality, then an even looooooonger debate about how the decision would be made to deny a purchase, and an even loooooooonger debate on what would constitute a reason to deny. Not to mention who makes the decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what Boom Boom said. I bet the loooongggggg debate would come after the legislation passed, not before. They're more likely to pass it and then pass the subsequent court costs of challenging and defending it on to the state citizens.
 
I live in New York State, and I dread the outcome of today's election for precisely this reason. A razor-thin Republican majority in the State Senate is the only thing keeping this kind of thing at bay. It wasn't enough to stave off the "SAFE" Act, but some of these more ridiculous proposals die on the vine. A Democratic majority will remove that protection, and we will have a whole new raft of draconian laws before you can say "microstamping."

I'm less concerned about what I post on Facebook -- which I have always treated as a public forum that reflects on me both personally and professionally -- than I am about the immense roadblock this will place in front of every single gun purchase in this state. They're talking about researching three years worth of social media postings before any gun sale. Where's the manpower to do that? How long will it take?

This is anti-gun obstructionism, pure and simple.
 
GAF: "I have to wonder if not having a social media profile will bring up red flags too?"

So, Comrade, you do not post on social media? Vhat are you hidink? Hmmm? Ve haf our vays of findink out.

Seriously. Back in the 1950s, I saw WWII movies, cold war dramas, "Man Hunt", "1984", "The Gamma People", and I thought, it can't happen here.
 
berettaprofessor said:
Yeah, what Boom Boom said. I bet the loooongggggg debate would come after the legislation passed, not before. They're more likely to pass it and then pass the subsequent court costs of challenging and defending it on to the state citizens.
Click to expand...

That's the problem right there. The people introducing those laws have no skin in the game. If they were individually held liable by the courts (hefty fines) when they introduce unconstitutional legislation (state constitution) they wouldn't risk it. The city of Seattle is constantly being sued over gun rights and losing in court. The citizen taxpayers foot the bill. It's almost like they can't read the constitution, resulting case law and previous AG decisions. Surely they aren't that stupid.
 
Last edited:
Thee are anti's who consider the NRA and Tea Party to be terrorist organizations. Never forget that their goal is the elimination of 2A rights, and the sale of firearms to members of these organizations could be denied. I live in the belly of the beast in Illinois, and there are no tactics here they won't stoop to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Odd Job
Odd Job
Old Dog
  • Locked
Here we go - NYS to check social media before issuing gun licenses
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
citizenconn
citizenconn
U
  • Locked
Do you think you should be able to use EBT to buy guns - this Sen. proposed a law
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Al Thompson
A
U
  • Locked
Colorado considers gun ban for people 'suspected' of being dangerous
Replies
12
Views
761
hso
hso
C
  • Locked
At State Level, More Attempts to Limit Guns
Replies
9
Views
681
MIL-DOT
M
Back
Top