Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
LastLast
  1. #241
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    It Was Capitalism All Along
    Posts
    53,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Yas-Queen Rochana View Post
    De facto monopolies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc. probably should be more tightly regulated, including assuring the right of access for people.
    You don’t have a right of access.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Thanks for proving to everyone you totally dump, i just told you the name of my President, and now you argue that my country is a monarchy? That was in Spain, My country is not Spain.
    And what country is yours?

  3. #243
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    13,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Sarcasm...there's a middle road that we're all aware of.
    That's what I was hoping but we live in an Era where sarcasm and satire is super hard to tell.

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Yas-Queen Rochana View Post
    De facto monopolies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc. probably should be more tightly regulated, including assuring the right of access for people.
    good can I have access to your house so I can sit in your living room and spout off nonsense to your family?

    What about if i want to set up a booth on your front lawn and spout off nonsense all day?
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  5. #245
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    33,974
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You really have to justify this with Twitter's ability to do the same. I can't force you to reckon with it, if you'd prefer to not even see it.

    If you need an extreme case to break through some mental blocks of yours, imagine Twitter bans every single Democratic official from their platform two weeks before an election. If you need a less extreme example, remember that Twitter banning AOC makes some millions of followers unable to follow her official addresses, whereas her block only affects one.
    Imagine thinking that twitter would just ban all the Democratic candidates before an election. You're stretching really far into the territory of "Things that would never ever ever happen". I realize you think people don't understand your point of view and are trying to come up with analogies to make it more relatable, but trust me, we know exactly where you're coming from. There's things that are a difference of opinion, and then there are things that are just WRONG. Cutting off people's twitter usage because they're sending death threats and inciting violence is a far cry different from just tossing someone off twitter just because.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    good can I have access to your house so I can sit in your living room and spout off nonsense to your family?

    What about if i want to set up a booth on your front lawn and spout off nonsense all day?
    I find it funny that Republicans and their sympathizers tend to be harshly against illegal things solely because "They're illegal" even if it's dumb that they're illegal things. I mean border crossing? You'd think to them that crime was worse than murder. But nope, banning people on twitter for inciting violence is legal, but now they want to make that illegal.

    You do realize @Yas-Queen Rochana that if the government did start regulating social media to make it a guaranteed right to access those platforms, there would be much more serious governmental punishments for people being assholes? Yeah, NOBODY wants that.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    I find it funny that Republicans and their sympathizers tend to be harshly against illegal things solely because "They're illegal" even if it's dumb that they're illegal things. I mean border crossing? You'd think to them that crime was worse than murder. But nope, banning people on twitter for inciting violence is legal, but now they want to make that illegal.

    You do realize @Yas-Queen Rochana that if the government did start regulating social media to make it a guaranteed right to access those platforms, there would be much more serious governmental punishments for people being assholes? Yeah, NOBODY wants that.
    they don't realize that the second these huge tech companies are forced to allow everyone no matter what they do and 230 being "abolished" causes them financial harm....their armies of highly paid lawyers will pounce on the users instantly.

    You can bet 120% the use of the web sites from that point forward will become "contracted" directly at and individual basis. No more simple click through of generic agreements and terms of service.

    They will have to give up all their personal information just to be allowed on the site yet alone "post" anything. Will make suing them very easy.

    Forget winning or losing, just the cost of defending yourself from a blank judgement on you will bankrupt a lot of people.

    They never fully follow through the impact of their desires.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    That's what I was hoping but we live in an Era where sarcasm and satire is super huard to tell.
    Understandable. My fault for omitting the sarcasm tag.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Unfortunately tech companies have the USCDA to deal with and that is why can be changed on them. Of course, it'll be on the USSC to determine to what length sites like Twitter and Facebook can be considered platforms and publishers, and that is the more contentious issue surrounding section 230 of the CDA.
    The law is on the books, the SCOTUS is really irrelevant at this point.

    Where is this platform versus publisher law? Please cite it.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The law is on the books, the SCOTUS is really irrelevant at this point.

    Where is this platform versus publisher law? Please cite it.
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/1...-doesnt-matter

    It doesn't matter, actually.

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Oh, I know it doesn't matter. The publisher vs. platform thing is simply a lie. People have been parroting that shit from Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz for years now.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Imagine thinking that twitter would just ban all the Democratic candidates before an election. You're stretching really far into the territory of "Things that would never ever ever happen". I realize you think people don't understand your point of view and are trying to come up with analogies to make it more relatable, but trust me, we know exactly where you're coming from. There's things that are a difference of opinion, and then there are things that are just WRONG. Cutting off people's twitter usage because they're sending death threats and inciting violence is a far cry different from just tossing someone off twitter just because.
    You managed to avoid comment on the legality and whether or not first amendment rights are implicated in my hypothetical. I couldn’t care less about your suppositions of likelihood if you can’t speak to the topic.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You managed to avoid comment on the legality and whether or not first amendment rights are implicated in my hypothetical. I couldn’t care less about your suppositions of likelihood if you can’t speak to the topic.
    Twitter or Facebook would be entirely within their rights to do so, just like when the dipshits on the Trump subreddit banned everyone who didn't support a racist piece of shit.

  13. #253
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,209
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You managed to avoid comment on the legality and whether or not first amendment rights are implicated in my hypothetical. I couldn’t care less about your suppositions of likelihood if you can’t speak to the topic.
    Mods on a public forum can regulate based on their rules, that are agreed to by the users. Trump being perma-banned was a mod enforcing the rules of a social media site. It's not Twitter's fault that Trump called for violence and racism. It's Trump's.

    When you realize that it's your Dear Leader's actions that cause his ban, a ban in a private social media forum, you'll be on the way to healing. Every time you think this is a first amendment issue, Trump getting perma-banned, you're just that much farther from enlightenment.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Mods on a public forum can regulate based on their rules, that are agreed to by the users. Trump being perma-banned was a mod enforcing the rules of a social media site. It's not Twitter's fault that Trump called for violence and racism. It's Trump's.

    When you realize that it's your Dear Leader's actions that cause his ban, a ban in a private social media forum, you'll be on the way to healing. Every time you think this is a first amendment issue, Trump getting perma-banned, you're just that much farther from enlightenment.
    I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

    I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

    I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.
    Evidence, please.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Evidence, please.
    Surely a libertarian doesn’t need exhaustive evidence for a company doing as it pleases. Pretend it’s a Tennessee bourbon company writing rules for what qualifies.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Surely a libertarian doesn’t need exhaustive evidence for a company doing as it pleases. Pretend it’s a Tennessee bourbon company writing rules for what qualifies.
    I expect people to be able to back up their claims. If not, that's fine... I'll take your retraction.

    I have no problem if Twitter wants to ban Nazi shit stains like Trump. I get that you want to clutch at pearls for your guy, but he got booted for a very good reason.

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

    I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.
    Oh, you think they would ban a user that hasn't broken the ToS?

  19. #259
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,209
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

    I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.
    So, you don't know that sites have posting rules? My apologies, I didn't realize that we were working with such a high level of ignorance.

    Trump's call to violence and racism was CLEARLY a rules violation. How you don't see that is why you're still posting the above drivel.

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    So, you don't know that sites have posting rules? My apologies, I didn't realize that we were working with such a high level of ignorance.

    Trump's call to violence and racism was CLEARLY a rules violation. How you don't see that is why you're still posting the above drivel.
    Yep, if anything, Trump should have been banned, literally years before he was banned. There are plenty of his posts that violated the Terms for Twitter, but since he had such a huge following, paid bots included, it meant that the longer that Twitter kept him, the more money he made them. Hell, my first account that I had, I got banned for calling Ann Coulter a horse faced bitch, which she is, and I took the ban like a champ.

Posting Permissions

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