Crime OAN begs liberals to save them

MicroBrew said:
There's plenty of very rich conservatives who can fund OAN, from Trump to Peter Thiel.
Click to expand...

i dont know about donald trump. lately he seems to be busy bragging about how rich he is while he asks regular people to give him their money so that he can buy another airplane to help save america with. he doesnt have the time of day, nor the funding to be able to help save his favorite news network.

and then there's his degenerate son. he's super rich too and also hasnt worked an honest day in his life, but he doesn't have that kind of money to put out to help save daddies favorite news network either. as a matter of fact, right now he needs some of your money so that he can "Save The Wall"
 
Last edited:
HOLA said:
The free market has spoken. It's not censorship anymore than CNN+ getting shut down was censorship.

OAN gained notoriety because they were willing to appease conspiratards more than Fox News was. That changed when the lawsuits started piling up, OAN cut the election fraud BS, and the chuds ran back to Tucker. Fuck em!
Click to expand...

People not wanting to tune in is a collection of individual choices made at an individual level. CNN+ failed because people didn't want to pay for a network they dont trust that usually has the same establishment endorsed news looping every 4 hours. The key difference here is that this was an individual choice made by the consumer. When a company chooses unilaterally to block a channel from individual consumers who want to watch it, that is against the principle of free expression.

Violating the principle of free expression is a problem that not only harms the person/entity trying to speak, but also the listener deprived of what they want to hear. If and when individuals saw through the BS that OAN was spewing, it would have likely gone the way of CNN+.
 
giusti825 said:
You wouldn't be fighting for low-level grifters and scammers. You'd be fighting for the principle that they can say what they want without direct government intervention or government intervention by proxy, which is a million times more important than even the most repugnant message.

Whether you like it or not, unprincipled views like this open the door for the baby to get thrown out with the bathwater. Opening the doors of censorship lead to anything that the ruling class disagrees with getting a label as "grifter" or "scammer" or "terrorist" or "disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation."

You are not the ruling or political class. Once they are allowed to censor, it will only be used as a tool to advance the interests of the ruling or political class, as it has always been historically. Only those in power get to choose what gets censored. We should never accept it, no matter how much we disagree with a persons political views.

The cure for bad speech is discourse. Not only will we end up in a position where the ruling and political class weaponize censorship-by-proxy, but we will have the compound effect of bad ideas festering without scrutiny and debate. Its a double lose scenario.
Click to expand...
Lol. You seem to have fallen down some sort of chomsky rabbit hole. It happens

They got dropped because Verizon and others cant make money off of them because other companies wont buy ad space on OAN programming because the general public will look disfavourably on them if they do, hurting their brands. They are getting banned indirectly by the general public through the market.

If a corporation thinks it can get away with it, or if it is finiancially viable, they'd platform OAN and pay to advertise on their programming. Just like they will do business with China or Saudi Arabia if the money is right.

OAN can survive on a subscription model like substack if they want, just at a lower scale.
 
Last edited:
BAM said:
Lol. You seem to have fallen down some sort of chomsky rabbit hole. It happens

They got dropped because Verizon and others cant make money off of them because other companies wont buy ad space on OAN programming because the general public will look disfavourably on them if they do, hurting their brands. They are getting banned indirectly by the general public through the market.

If a corporation thinks it can get away with it, or if it is finiancially viable, they'd platform OAN and pay to advertise on their programming. Just like they will do business with China or Saudi Arabia if the money is right.

OAN can survive on a subscription model like substack if they want, just at a lower scale.
Click to expand...

Okay. This is a completely different scenario. I was under the impression that Verizon unilaterally decided to pull their network, not that they weren't able to pay to keep their network on the air. They need to either pay for their programming by accepting donations, offering a subscription model or going the youtube route. It is still troubling that corporations have so much sway over what the public sees and hears. This structure is designed to favor the establishment. The telecommunications act took us from having over 90 media entities funded by many different sources to just 6 major media companies.
 
BAM said:
Lol. You seem to have fallen down some sort of chomsky rabbit hole. It happens

They got dropped because Verizon and others cant make money off of them because other companies wont buy ad space on OAN programming because the general public will look disfavourably on them if they do, hurting their brands. They are getting banned indirectly by the general public through the market.

If a corporation thinks it can get away with it, or if it is finiancially viable, they'd platform OAN and pay to advertise on their programming. Just like they will do business with China or Saudi Arabia if the money is right.

OAN can survive on a subscription model like substack if they want, just at a lower scale.
Click to expand...

OAN can go to hell, sincerely, don’t care.

But if you think these mega brands are worried about “looking bad” you have officially lost the plot.

Dollars only. That’s the beginning and the end. Nothing else matters.

These aren’t mom and pop shops. “Bad publicity” means nothing, especially in the way of where advertising dollars go. That is a convoluted idea to most viewers that most will never even think of and quite literally almost no one cares about what networks they see any given advertisement on.

Dollars only.
 
Fugazy said:
OAN can go to hell, sincerely, don’t care.

But if you think these mega brands are worried about “looking bad” you have officially lost the plot.

Dollars only. That’s the beginning and the end. Nothing else matters.

These aren’t mom and pop shops. “Bad publicity” means nothing, especially in the way of where advertising dollars go. That is a convoluted idea to most viewers that most will never even think of and quite literally almost no one cares about what networks they see any given advertisement on.

Dollars only.
Click to expand...
"Looking bad" = impacting a company's goodwill

Goodwill is very important to monitising the brand and value of the company. Business 101
 
BAM said:
"Looking bad" = impacting a company's goodwill

Goodwill is very important to monitising the brand and value of the company. Business 101
Click to expand...

I mean after a certain level that’s just not true.

There’s a reason why Deshaun Watson can still play in the NFL.

No one reeeeeally cares and they are still going to make buckets of money.
 
Loiosh said:
I know she's crazy as fuck but the only data that sticks in my mind is her fine rack.
Click to expand...
lmao def agree. i watched a few of her vids. pretty funny shit.
 
dildos said:
lmao def agree. i watched a few of her vids. pretty funny shit.
Click to expand...

I assume she's headless, I can't see anything about her shoulderline. My eyes won't go that high.
 
I don't care for this woman either, but when you start spitting ridiculous and false accusations like she believes " China is controlling the thermostat in her house to torture her" you've lost any credibility you might have started with.
 
Last edited:
giusti825 said:
You wouldn't be fighting for low-level grifters and scammers. You'd be fighting for the principle that they can say what they want without direct government intervention or government intervention by proxy, which is a million times more important than even the most repugnant message.

Whether you like it or not, unprincipled views like this open the door for the baby to get thrown out with the bathwater. Opening the doors of censorship lead to anything that the ruling class disagrees with getting a label as "grifter" or "scammer" or "terrorist" or "disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation."

You are not the ruling or political class. Once they are allowed to censor, it will only be used as a tool to advance the interests of the ruling or political class, as it has always been historically. Only those in power get to choose what gets censored. We should never accept it, no matter how much we disagree with a persons political views.

The cure for bad speech is discourse. Not only will we end up in a position where the ruling and political class weaponize censorship-by-proxy, but we will have the compound effect of bad ideas festering without scrutiny and debate. Its a double lose scenario.
Click to expand...
Even putting their false reporting aside, if you want to argue they're a legitimate news source, I read they were averaging 14,000 viewers. It can at least be argued this was a straight forward business decision. I understand it struck a chord with you but it doesn't seem like an attack on the 1st Amendment to me.
 
giusti825 said:
People not wanting to tune in is a collection of individual choices made at an individual level. CNN+ failed because people didn't want to pay for a network they dont trust that usually has the same establishment endorsed news looping every 4 hours. The key difference here is that this was an individual choice made by the consumer. When a company chooses unilaterally to block a channel from individual consumers who want to watch it, that is against the principle of free expression.

Violating the principle of free expression is a problem that not only harms the person/entity trying to speak, but also the listener deprived of what they want to hear. If and when individuals saw through the BS that OAN was spewing, it would have likely gone the way of CNN+.
Click to expand...
This seems like free enterprise to me.
 
yet these big tv corps have no problem having shit like msnbc and cnn in their lineup .. who's the next idiot who's gonna say the msm isn't run by the left
 
BAM said:
Lol. You seem to have fallen down some sort of chomsky rabbit hole. It happens

They got dropped because Verizon and others cant make money off of them because other companies wont buy ad space on OAN programming because the general public will look disfavourably on them if they do, hurting their brands. They are getting banned indirectly by the general public through the market.

If a corporation thinks it can get away with it, or if it is finiancially viable, they'd platform OAN and pay to advertise on their programming. Just like they will do business with China or Saudi Arabia if the money is right.

OAN can survive on a subscription model like substack if they want, just at a lower scale.
Click to expand...

makes sense
 
giusti825 said:
Okay. This is a completely different scenario. I was under the impression that Verizon unilaterally decided to pull their network, not that they weren't able to pay to keep their network on the air. They need to either pay for their programming by accepting donations, offering a subscription model or going the youtube route. It is still troubling that corporations have so much sway over what the public sees and hears. This structure is designed to favor the establishment. The telecommunications act took us from having over 90 media entities funded by many different sources to just 6 major media companies.
Click to expand...


they really need to bring in america's favorite crackhead (no, not hunter biden) and double down on the mypillow ads. that oughtta save this chud propaganda network.

i mean when youre promoting a bunch of completely unproven stolen election wackadoodle conspiracies to cheeto benito's finest spectrum of short bus fucking retards over mango mussolini's most favorite news network, and you're trying to have a presidential election overturned, who better to trust with all of the damning evidence of the actual fraud that nobody else in the world is allowed to see than this guy right here?

Mike Lindell Randomly Declared That He Didn’t Pay Attention To Politics For 30 Years Because ‘I Was On Crack’
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,027
Messages
55,462,293
Members
174,786
Latest member
Santos FC 1912

Share this page

Back
Top