View Poll Results: Should they be labeled as a terrorist organization?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • No [I'm Conservative]

    8 13.33%
  • Yes [I'm Liberal]

    33 55.00%
  • Yes [I'm Conservative]

    2 3.33%
  • No [I'm Liberal]

    17 28.33%
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
15
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Why could I not? You are posting different conceptual things to a social media platform that shows either a utter misunderstanding of the conversation or deliberately trying to move goal posts.

    Yes I believe you are have the right to remove people from a physical location that are disruptive. I don't believe a social platform should be regulated in an identical manner.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I'm not and you have misunderstood the conversation to a comedic degree.
    I mean, they're both owned by private citizens. Why should one be treated differently than another? And their site does have a physical location. Multiple of them in fact. That's what they are removing you from, their physical servers.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    And that does not mean they can post anything they want.
    Of course not I believe local laws should be enforced.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    If you honestly believe a physical location and a digital platform are completely identical no argument I can make will move you from your view.

    I don't agree with it but it's the fundamental difference in what I'm saying.
    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?

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Of course not I believe local laws should be enforced.
    What local laws, exactly?

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Of course not I believe local laws should be enforced.
    They are currently being enforced.
    Americans are the Chinese of the west. The main reason people tolerate them is because they are too big to ignore.

    "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack." - Roger Stone (Trump's Friend, Ally, and Campaign Advisor)

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    They are currently being enforced.
    They are but that is what I would place as the upper limit not the starting point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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?

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    I also see inherit value in having as much free expression as possible.
    Twitter isn't the internet.
    Americans are the Chinese of the west. The main reason people tolerate them is because they are too big to ignore.

    "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack." - Roger Stone (Trump's Friend, Ally, and Campaign Advisor)

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    Twitter isn't the internet.
    Correct. You earned a tendie today.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    Correct. You earned a tendie today.
    Yet you're complaining that Twitter is the internet.
    Americans are the Chinese of the west. The main reason people tolerate them is because they are too big to ignore.

    "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack." - Roger Stone (Trump's Friend, Ally, and Campaign Advisor)

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    Yet you're complaining that Twitter is the internet.
    Maybe you didn't earn that tendie... your not following along very well.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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.
    Americans are the Chinese of the west. The main reason people tolerate them is because they are too big to ignore.

    "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack." - Roger Stone (Trump's Friend, Ally, and Campaign Advisor)

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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.

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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.
    Americans are the Chinese of the west. The main reason people tolerate them is because they are too big to ignore.

    "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack." - Roger Stone (Trump's Friend, Ally, and Campaign Advisor)

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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!!!

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Krakan View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •