Should QAnon be labeled as a terrorist organization?

[szechuan]

Of course not I believe local laws should be enforced.

They are currently being enforced.

[Krakan]

I mean, they're both owned by private citizens. Why should one be treated differently than another?

I personally believe that digital holding need seperate regulations then physical ones especially as they have become the most widely consumed sources of information ( I am not claiming that is a good thing).

By allowing them to moderated by biased they offer immensely powerful tools to push forth political and private agendas. I also see inherit value in having as much free expression as possible.

- - - Updated - - -

They are currently being enforced.

They are but that is what I would place as the upper limit not the starting point.

- - - Updated - - -

What is different between ownership of a physical location and a private website that other can use? Do I not have control over my property? Do I not get to choose who I do and don't allow on my property? Do I not get to choose to remove asshats from my property for any reason I see fit, because it's my property and nobody else has any right to be on it?

It's already been stated in the thread and I worry about having this turn circular with me explaining my position continuously

[Machismo]

I personally believe that digital holding need seperate regulations then physical ones especially as they have become the most widely consumed sources of information ( I am not claiming that is a good thing).

By allowing them to moderated by biased they offer immensely powerful tools to push forth political and private agendas. I also see inherit value in having as much free expression as possible.

- - - Updated - - -



They are but that is what I would place as the upper limit not the starting point.

So, a Christian website is a digital holding. Many allow for people to post things. Should they be obligated to allow posts with gay porn on them, or even pro-LGBTT messages?

[Edge-]

By allowing them to moderated by biased they offer immensely powerful tools to push forth political and private agendas. I also see inherit value in having as much free expression as possible.

Congrats, you've killed the First Amendment by getting government in the business of arbitrarily regulating speech on private property.

[Machismo]

I personally believe that digital holding need seperate regulations then physical ones especially as they have become the most widely consumed sources of information ( I am not claiming that is a good thing).

By allowing them to moderated by biased they offer immensely powerful tools to push forth political and private agendas. I also see inherit value in having as much free expression as possible.

- - - Updated - - -



They are but that is what I would place as the upper limit not the starting point.

- - - Updated - - -



It's already been stated in the thread and I worry about having this turn circular with me explaining my position continuously

What local laws, exactly?

Your stance is decidedly against the First Amendment.

[szechuan]

I also see inherit value in having as much free expression as possible.

Twitter isn't the internet.

[Krakan]

So, a Christian website is a digital holding. Many allow for people to post things. Should they be obligated to allow posts with gay porn on them, or even pro-LGBTT messages?

Can you give some examples of this? It feels like your trying to will entites into existence to prove a fringe point.

- - - Updated - - -

Twitter isn't the internet.

Correct. You earned a tendie today.

[szechuan]

Correct. You earned a tendie today.

Yet you're complaining that Twitter is the internet.

[Krakan]

Congrats, you've killed the First Amendment by getting government in the business of arbitrarily regulating speech on private property.

I rather have elected officials in control then a oligarchy yes... don't get me wrong I would rather have none but they are preferable if its only the two.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you're complaining that Twitter is the internet.

Maybe you didn't earn that tendie... your not following along very well.

[szechuan]

Can you give some examples of this? It feels like your trying to will entites into existence to prove a fringe point.

Those are not fringe points.

[Machismo]

Can you give some examples of this? It feels like your trying to will entites into existence to prove a fringe point.

I literally just did.

There are Christian websites and even Christian chat forums. There's even Christian dating sites.

Now, if you want specific URLs, I'll gladly give them to you, just as soon as you give me those sites you were discussing earlier, as well as those draconian laws you were worried about, along with those local laws you supposedly want enforced. I'd hate for you to be intellectually dishonest, and ask for things you are unwilling to also provide.

I'll take any failure to provide those as an admission that you were lying about all of it.

[szechuan]

Maybe you didn't earn that tendie... your not following along very well.

Says the person who seems to be complaining that Twitter is the internet.

[Edge-]

I rather have elected officials in control then a oligarchy yes... don't get me wrong I would rather have none but they are preferable if its only the two.

This is not an oligarchy. This is literally every digital business. This is a frighteningly pro-authoritarian government position to take, mein duden.

[Machismo]

I rather have elected officials in control then a oligarchy yes... don't get me wrong I would rather have none but they are preferable if its only the two.

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe you didn't earn that tendie... your not following along very well.

You are literally opposing the First Amendment, right there.

Thanks for admitting it!!!

[Krakan]

I literally just did.

There are Christian websites and even Christian chat forums. There's even Christian dating sites.

Now, if you want specific URLs, I'll gladly give them to you, just as soon as you give me those sites you were discussing earlier, as well as those draconian laws you were worried about, along with those local laws you supposedly want enforced. I'd hate for you to be intellectually dishonest, and ask for things you are unwilling to also provide.

I'll take any failure to provide those as an admission that you were lying about all of it.

I am going to assume you meant can people post to those sites rather than host them?

Sorry your so confused about the topic its difficult to determine what points your trying to make.

I would argue yes they should just as they should be free to shout them down if it's a open forum.

I admit there are shades of gray to things like private forums that are not trying to be social platforms I see no harm in restricting accounts. The purpose of the platform matter as much as the function.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not an oligarchy. This is literally every digital business. This is a frighteningly pro-authoritarian government position to take, mein duden.

I suppose it would be. Like I said it's the lesser evil to me not the preferred state of being.

[Edge-]

I admit there are shades of gray to things like private forums that are not trying to be social platforms I see no harm in restricting accounts. The purpose of the platform matter as much as the function.

This is not a legal distinction, but an arbitrary personal distinction.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose it would be. Like I said it's the lesser evil to me not the preferred state of being.

No, it's the greater evil. You're seeking to put legal limitations on speech that do not exist. For anyone claiming to be pro-free speech, that's a hypocritical position to take that's antithetical to the notion of free speech.

Free speech =|= Forced speech.

[Krakan]

You are literally opposing the First Amendment, right there.

Thanks for admitting it!!!

Admitting what exactly... I already explicitly stated I think digital platforms should be regulated differently then physical..

You really are confused...

[szechuan]

I would argue yes they should just as they should be free to shout them down if it's a open forum.

You're not free to send death threats on these forums.

admit there are shades of gray to things like private forums that are not trying to be social platforms I see no harm in restricting accounts. The purpose of the platform matter as much as the function.

Private Forums are Social Platforms.

[Krakan]

This is not a legal distinction, but an arbitrary personal distinction.

- - - Updated - - -



No, it's the greater evil. You're seeking to put legal limitations on speech that do not exist. For anyone claiming to be pro-free speech, that's a hypocritical position to take that's antithetical to the notion of free speech.

Free speech =|= Forced speech.

It not being a legal distinction I would argue are lagging laws more then a positive point.

What I am arguing would be sweeping protections on speech save for an extreme minority of a minority...

[szechuan]

Admitting what exactly... I already explicitly stated I think digital platforms should be regulated differently then physical..

You really are confused...

Says the person ignoring the First Amendment.