Individuals from all corners of the political spectrum have been rilled up by the recent bannings of various figures from social media platforms including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan. Some have praised these bans for providing good restrictions on what they deem “fake news” or “hate speech”. Others have attacked these bans for being influenced by nefarious motives that are contra free speech. The debate regarding the extent to which social media sites may regulate speech has been going on for years now. Perhaps it is time for a reassessment.
Warren Albrecht | United States
We frequently hear that the cost of healthcare is increasing. But we rarely hear anyone define why despite the reason being so obvious: government intrusion. Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Medica, nor Anthem was ever on business programs complaining of the cost of healthcare. Instead, the mainstream media gave platforms to the representatives of Medicare and Medicaid, debt providers for taxpayers. Meanwhile, the Obama administration stopped the mergers of health insurance companies.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the deals “would leave much of the multi-trillion dollar health insurance industry in the hands of three mammoth insurance companies, drastically constricting competition in a number of key markets that tens of millions of Americans rely on to receive health care”.
So one has to ask anyone supporting single-payer health care: why would government control (socialized medicine) be work without any competition? In short, it wouldn’t.
In the movie Lincoln, the audience gets to view a historically accurate drama depicting how President Lincoln and the Radical Republicans passed the 13th Amendment in the House of Representatives and on its way to its eventual ratification by all the states. Republicans controlled a super-majority in the Senate, so passing the Amendment was a piece of cake. But they did not own a super-majority in the House, so they had to use some less than legal methods to get Democratic votes. Though these tactics gained them votes, they needed to make sure not to scare the Democrats away by appearing too radical. Because of this, during the debates, Lincon himself encouraged radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens to appear more moderate in order to appeal to the Democrats.
Earlier this month, Alabama and Georgia both passed controversial anti-abortion legislation. The “heartbeat laws”, which outlaw abortion once the fetus has a heartbeat. In the wake of such, pro-choice women have been lighting up social media. Notably, false reports that the Alabama heartbeat law would prosecute women for miscarriages made the rounds on the news cycle. The bill would only pull a woman into an investigation if there was suspicion someone else had performed an abortion on her. This bit of misinformation contributes to media fear mongering, and somewhat humorously, some Twitter users calling for a “Sex Strike.”
Yesterday, the College Board, which administers the SAT and associated exams, announced that it has begun to incorporate an “adversity score,” which measures socioeconomic background, into its test scoring regimen. This additional score runs from a scale of zero to one hundred; it considers factors fifteen ranging from the education quality and academic rigor of the applicant’s high school to crime and poverty statistics from the applicant’s neighborhood. Does it have any merits?