Posted on 05/15/2023 12:00:45 PM PDT by BenLurkin
BEFORE...
AFTER...
The ONLY things the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do are those LIMITED AND ENUMERATED things DELGATED TO THEM in the U.S. CONSTITUTION, most of which is enumerated in ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.
The states on the other hand are sovereign less certain limited constitutional restrictions.
So, no, the feds are not allowed to meddle in social media, but the states may.
PATRIOTS, GET THIS!!!
Could it be because the FBI, and NSA, and other international intelligence and police agencies, have been downloading photos from Facebook to create face recognition databases?
And if there are several fake photos of associated with your name, then police surveillance cameras won't recognize you?
.
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN AFTER THE LEFT GETS DONE WITH IT
Mr “No Repeal” Eisenhower could have saved us from this present lawlessness but rubber stamped FDR era Arbitrary government instead.
Unhappily and sadly, Eisenhower and most of the Right was and is socialist.
What about make-up?!
Shouldn't the government intercede and regulate the use of cosmetics, too?!
Regards,
Most people when it comes to goring their ox.
For me, I don’t mind building public infrastructures if it really means net cost savings to society overall.
Throughout many decades, products have been advertised using attractive, air-brushed models. Was anything like this ever suggested before?
It seems to me that photos can be altered with software, too. Someone really expert in ‘photoshop’ could certainly identify themselves with fake images.
When I first saw the title, I was thinking that this is where you end up when more and more Fauxi face filters are applied... an altered face.
There aren’t just privacy concerns about all of the new tech developments that present real danger; there’s also the manufacturing of fake evidence and fake ‘news’.
See my post #4.
I do understand that. I don’t want the federal government involved in anything at all, when it comes to within the country. I mean that in all respects. Let the states take care of social concerns and let the federal government attend to national interests.
On that point, there is no ox of mine that would be gored.
The Federal government and agencies have often ignored ‘LEGAL AUTHORITY’, ‘LIMITED AND ENUMERATED’, and even their Constitutional requirements.
Law often doesn’t seem to mean much anymore to those tasked with obeying it, especially if breaking the law aids them politically - e.g., our Southern border.
Should the bbc be trying to get the government to stick its nose a little deeper into social media? Or should the bbc just shut up?
Both are corrupt and should stay out of our lives.
I wouldn't say Eisenhower was socialist. More likely a "respectable Republican" who was willing to trim back a bit, but didn't want to be an "extremist."
Democrats always push the country left. Then "respectable Republicans" cluck their disapproval and trim back a bit. Just a bit. Anything more would be extreme and partisan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.