Monad said: Twitter allows dictators and mass murderers to be there from regimes all over the world but Trump is "inspiring violence". But banning him isn't the bigger issue, the bigger issue is the actions of all big tech afterwards to go after Parler. This shows a monopolistic lobby were they try to control everything and it is something that shouldn't be allowed. They freely destroy any principle of free market by killing any competition by cooperating. Apple and Google etc banning the Parler up at the same time, their host abandoning them even their lawyers. And for what? Out of fear that Trump may post on Parler and it will become a legitimate competition to Twitter since it was getting popular. I like how people say, "they are not obliged to host you, they are a corporation, go elsewhere" and yet they make sure there is no elsewhere. They destroy any competitor daring to rise threw. And all this corporations are all in it it together so they can keep the status quo of power. Is so obvious they work together since they attack competitors and ban certain people together all at once. A complete abuse of power. Even the banks work with them with also Visa and Mastercard cutting services to their competitors. All one big corrupted family along with their payed politicians making laws for them and making sure they get government funds. Now we have the corrupted career politicians in Washington trying to bring Trump down just days before he steps down. Why bother for a few days? Well out of fear he may run on 2024. They want to make sure he can't run again. If that isn't an admission they know people actually voted for him i don't know what it is. AmityBlight said: What happen at the capitol was the most hillbilly redneck white trash shit I ever seen. Trump more joe dirt. Please spare me the bullshit. The whole country was burning for months on top of that governors lead their people to poverty and bankruptcy with unconstitutional tyrannical laws and suddenly you all remembered to be shocked when Pelosi's office papers were thrown around just because the media decided to play shocked and you follow like little gullible sheep. This is just a blatant misunderstanding of what the free market is and there is no concept in a free market that forces the existence of competition. Free market is just a statement advocating for little government intervention or regulation and being focused on supply and demand. There's nothing about a free market to say a company can't become the sole distributor of a good or service or use methods to prevent other competition from appearing. To further illustrate the point, Amazon can shut down websites they don't want to host on their physical servers. If you're saying the government should force them to host that website then you're advocating against a free market. Google and Apple don't have to host Parler on their app stores, if you're saying the government should force them to do so then again you're advocating against a free market. This is no different than arguing in favor of government subsidies, it's choosing which businesses are viable competition and the government giving them resources to support them. If you were advocating in favor of a free market you as a consumer would boycott those services and put all of your money into supporting competitors because that is the free market method. This is the peak free market at work, the businesses who made their way to the top shut out all other competition and they don't even need the government to help them do it. |
GamerDLM said: Monad said: Twitter allows dictators and mass murderers to be there from regimes all over the world but Trump is "inspiring violence". But banning him isn't the bigger issue, the bigger issue is the actions of all big tech afterwards to go after Parler. This shows a monopolistic lobby were they try to control everything and it is something that shouldn't be allowed. They freely destroy any principle of free market by killing any competition by cooperating. Apple and Google etc banning the Parler up at the same time, their host abandoning them even their lawyers. And for what? Out of fear that Trump may post on Parler and it will become a legitimate competition to Twitter since it was getting popular. I like how people say, "they are not obliged to host you, they are a corporation, go elsewhere" and yet they make sure there is no elsewhere. They destroy any competitor daring to rise threw. And all this corporations are all in it it together so they can keep the status quo of power. Is so obvious they work together since they attack competitors and ban certain people together all at once. A complete abuse of power. Even the banks work with them with also Visa and Mastercard cutting services to their competitors. All one big corrupted family along with their payed politicians making laws for them and making sure they get government funds. Now we have the corrupted career politicians in Washington trying to bring Trump down just days before he steps down. Why bother for a few days? Well out of fear he may run on 2024. They want to make sure he can't run again. If that isn't an admission they know people actually voted for him i don't know what it is. Please spare me the bullshit. The whole country was burning for months on top of that governors lead their people to poverty and bankruptcy with unconstitutional tyrannical laws and suddenly you all remembered to be shocked when Pelosi's office papers were thrown around just because the media decided to play shocked and you follow like little gullible sheep. This is just a blatant misunderstanding of what the free market is and there is no concept in a free market that forces the existence of competition. Free market is just a statement advocating for little government intervention or regulation and being focused on supply and demand. There's nothing about a free market to say a company can't become the sole distributor of a good or service or use methods to prevent other competition from appearing. To further illustrate the point, Amazon can shut down websites they don't want to host on their physical servers. If you're saying the government should force them to host that website then you're advocating against a free market. Google and Apple don't have to host Parler on their app stores, if you're saying the government should force them to do so then again you're advocating against a free market. This is no different than arguing in favor of government subsidies, it's choosing which businesses are viable competition and the government giving them resources to support them. If you were advocating in favor of a free market you as a consumer would boycott those services and put all of your money into supporting competitors because that is the free market method. This is the peak free market at work, the businesses who made their way to the top shut out all other competition and they don't even need the government to help them do it. According to you, a competitor must own a bank along with a pay service, along with a Internet host servers etc etc, just so he can be in business. Great just freaking great. And you don't see an issue with this? And is it fine with you with all this mega corps meeting and act like a team to keep everyone out? That probably isn't even legal but am sure they can pay some politicians to make it so. Speech basically controlled by them fully, one big cartel united, from politicians to mainstream media to Internet media together. And anyone daring not following their wishes gets demonized(Trump) or crashed out of existence(all the business until now trying to get on the game they made disappear). |
Monad said: GamerDLM said: This is just a blatant misunderstanding of what the free market is and there is no concept in a free market that forces the existence of competition. Free market is just a statement advocating for little government intervention or regulation and being focused on supply and demand. There's nothing about a free market to say a company can't become the sole distributor of a good or service or use methods to prevent other competition from appearing. To further illustrate the point, Amazon can shut down websites they don't want to host on their physical servers. If you're saying the government should force them to host that website then you're advocating against a free market. Google and Apple don't have to host Parler on their app stores, if you're saying the government should force them to do so then again you're advocating against a free market. This is no different than arguing in favor of government subsidies, it's choosing which businesses are viable competition and the government giving them resources to support them. If you were advocating in favor of a free market you as a consumer would boycott those services and put all of your money into supporting competitors because that is the free market method. This is the peak free market at work, the businesses who made their way to the top shut out all other competition and they don't even need the government to help them do it. According to you, a competitor must own a bank along with a pay service, along with a Internet host servers etc etc, just so he can be in business. Great just freaking great. And you don't see an issue with this? And is it fine with you with all this mega corps meeting and act like a team to keep everyone out? That probably isn't even legal but am sure they can pay some politicians to make it so. Speech basically controlled by them fully, one big cartel united, from politicians to mainstream media to Internet media together. And anyone daring not following their wishes gets demonized(Trump) or crashed out of existence(all the business until now trying to get on the game they made disappear). If I was advocating for a free market that is exactly what I mean. Unrestricted competition is the ideal for a free market under the assumption that the market will naturally regulate things such as prices itself. The people claiming this is a move against a free market have to show how this is counterintuitive to the concept of unrestricted competition between private businesses. Unrestricted competition also means they can agree to not compete with each other there's inherently no problem with that in a free market. To use your examples: Amazon won't host your website on their physical servers? Better find another host who will support them there's a demand so a supply will just naturally appear because free market. Banks won't give you a loan for your business venture? Better find some investors or pull yourself up by your bootstraps and save up the money yourself. ISP in your region won't host your website? Better find another region to move your physical servers to so you can find a new host. If anything I'm arguing against the free market as a theory because of how inherently flawed it is and criticizing you for championing it as an economic theory while at the same time actively advocating against it. Edit: For example in this response as soon as you argued the legality of noncompetitive agreements you've taken an agreement between 2 or more private businesses and said the government should intervene. That's placing an added restriction that businesses have to compete with each other based on a government regulation under threat of some kind of punishment. Quite literally the opposite of a free market advocate. |
GamerDLMJan 11, 2021 1:00 PM
GamerDLM said: I think I just capitalasmed reading this, cause its worded and points are there-- tho Monad as a user will probably look over it cause they become really entrenched in their reasoning (double-edge sword). Still can't wait to see the responses from this beautiful display of critical reasoning, why free market as theory is idealism, just as communism is to others beliefs.Monad said: According to you, a competitor must own a bank along with a pay service, along with a Internet host servers etc etc, just so he can be in business. Great just freaking great. And you don't see an issue with this? And is it fine with you with all this mega corps meeting and act like a team to keep everyone out? That probably isn't even legal but am sure they can pay some politicians to make it so. Speech basically controlled by them fully, one big cartel united, from politicians to mainstream media to Internet media together. And anyone daring not following their wishes gets demonized(Trump) or crashed out of existence(all the business until now trying to get on the game they made disappear). If I was advocating for a free market that is exactly what I mean. Unrestricted competition is the ideal for a free market under the assumption that the market will naturally regulate things such as prices itself. The people claiming this is a move against a free market have to show how this is counterintuitive to the concept of unrestricted competition between private businesses. Unrestricted competition also means they can agree to not compete with each other there's inherently no problem with that in a free market. To use your examples: Amazon won't host your website on their physical servers? Better find another host who will support them there's a demand so a supply will just naturally appear because free market. Banks won't give you a loan for your business venture? Better find some investors or pull yourself up by your bootstraps and save up the money yourself. ISP in your region won't host your website? Better find another region to move your physical servers to so you can find a new host. If anything I'm arguing against the free market as a theory because of how inherently flawed it is and criticizing you for championing it as an economic theory while at the same time actively advocating against it. Edit: For example in this response as soon as you argued the legality of noncompetitive agreements you've taken an agreement between 2 or more private businesses and said the government should intervene. That's placing an added restriction that businesses have to compete with each other based on a government regulation under threat of some kind of punishment. Quite literally the opposite of a free market advocate. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| @Opticflash I asked you for evidence of Biden making racist or sexist tweets, as you claimed he did. Then you now claim you aren't sure? Do you not see how dishonest you are here? Alright dude, alright, he didn't make any racist tweet, but nothing of that changes the fact that twitter gives preferential treatment for certain people.Furthermore, do you know what type of news source Fox News is? It's a new source that panders to the American far right, meaning they will skewer word or statement to fit the right's agenda regardless of whether it is accurate or not. For instance, calling someone "you're a lovely person" isn't sexism in any way, nor does it necessarily indicate hostile intent. People do this all the time by trying to maintain a standard of professionalism towards bitter customers. It could've been on CNN or BBC I would have done the same thing, as long as the fact is still there, doesn't matter from where it comes from, it's a fact. Better counter-attack the argument, not who's arguing it, instead of saying it's "Far-right", "fascist", "neo-nazi", can't people just bother just talking about the study subject, or in other words, going to the purpose of the meeting? As for the sexist case, that goes under interpretation, most people wouldn't call it sexist, but did you forget some twitter SJW's may find it sexist? Shouldn't you agree with that too? That's the way I buy things for those who blindly support politicians. Biden has a historical racist profile, and that won't change regardless from where the sources come from. |
FragMentizedJan 11, 2021 2:14 PM
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
| Facts are only facts if you have the evidence to back them up. "Oh but they're there somewhere" is merely a statement at best. |
 |
hazarddex said: Meusnier said: How sad... It would be about time for political leaders to realize the unreasonable importance they gave to these platforms which were never champions of free speech. If someone damages their image, they can remove it, and it should not pose any problem for it is a capitalistic decision. I wish that all political leaders would stop using this website and go back to the traditional way of communicating. Less teenagers drama, more real work. Most sensible thing said in this thread Thank you for your kind words! I read an interesting article from a right-wing journal yesterday and the journalist argued that "social networks [had] become essential to democracy", which seems like a very dubious claim to me. When the President of a country gave an official press conference fifteen years ago, I remember how it felt solemn and important. Maybe this is not always a good thing, but the words of politicians seemed to have more weight. Now, when a President posts memes on Twitter such as "Make the Planet Great Again!" while conducting an anti-ecologist policy, this is no surprise that the trust five to politicians decrease. Another point would be the vote manipulations that social networks made much easier thanks to the very rapid spread of news, fake or not. A good tool of propaganda? Yes. An necessary tool for democracy? I doubt it. |
Theo1899 said: thanks needed the laugh today, he’s anything but intelligent.Trump is a smart guy Mummykun said: Here we have an example of some of the delusional sycophants following the fascist orange cult leader to irrelevancy. Flat earther to boot, someone make education great again in the USA it’s a breeding ground for idiots with no critical thinking skills.The purpose of it is to decrease the possibility of Trump calling people to manifest against the election fraud made to remove Trump from power and to replace him with the insane man called Biden who defends murder of babies and stricter house arrests, which is necessary for the owners of big corporations to fulfil their agenda of world domination. And that is after they had spent many weeks putting a message below Trump's texts on Facebook and Twitter denying the things that he said while showing a link to what corresponds to the truth according to what the Big Brother determined that must be accepted as the truth. And it is not just Trump who is being censured, but many of his supporters as well. The same goes for the things related to the "cOvId". For now they are putting a link below the videos that are against lockdowns and vaccines, saying "COVID-19 Get the latest information from the WHO about coronavirus." and "Learn about vaccine progress from the WHO". But it's probably just a matter of time before all voices that against the world's "official information" get totally banned from all the social media, which is why many people are repeating '1984 is here' on twitter, referring to how in the book people are forced to ignore the truth and blindly believe in whatever the communist State, that controls all sources of information, determines that must be accepted as the truth, including the belief that two plus two equals five, which is not much different from the way how in many places people are already being forced to deny what they see with their own eyes and accept that a boy is not a boy and that a girl is not a girl. Things were already bad with Trump as the American president, since even as a good mostly conservative president he did not have enough power to detain the leftist agenda, just like it happens with Bolsonaro in Brazil. But now if Biden really governs for four years America will soon be turned into Hell, along with the rest of the world, especially since Biden is just Xi Jinping's puppet who will do everything to increase China and multinational companies' power to govern people as slaves. The only good point of this aggressive censure against Trump is that it may have the effect of enraging the sane people, who don't like to be manipulated, encouraging them to take their weapons to keep Trump by force against the criminal judges who are allowing the fraud to happen. And only the stupid people who play video games or already receive money to be part of the leftist agenda are watching all the imposition of social control and the censure of conservative thought as if it were all for people's sake, because they gave up thinking with their own mind and it is more convenient to blindly believe in the stories told by the world government that they already worship as a god. This bullshit right here is an example of it: Opticflash said: he is spreading false information and inciting violence. "false information": The truth that is inconvenient for the leftist agenda. "inciting violence": Standing against an election fraud that ignored the votes of by far most people in order to replace Trump with an insane man who defends murder of babies and communism, and who regards as peaceful protests the "antifa"'s terrorism. |
KneelBeforeMeJan 11, 2021 4:45 PM
 |
Meusnier said: Another point would be the vote manipulations that social networks made much easier thanks to the very rapid spread of news, fake or not. A good tool of propaganda? Yes. An necessary tool for democracy? I doubt it. While I agree with what you say, I believe "inevitable" is a better word than "necessary." The average person spends hours on these social media and obsessively checks their phone hundreds of times each day. As you said, it is a good tool for propaganda, arguably the best tool, perhaps. Such a withdrawal would give a tremendous advantage to your political opponents. In other words, either everyone stops or nobody stops. The former scenario seems like the better one, but the only practical way of achieving it is through some law that prohibits politicians from using the site to their benefit. |
| I wonder why Twitter still allows actual dictators to be in their website, if they say they're so much against authoritarianism? Oh yeah, I forgot that dictator is a "good" dictator. No limits for hypocrisy amir. hazarddex said: Doesn't the government already take the right of association of the media anyways? At least on most places? LOL What type of joke is this BTW if you think corporations shouldn't have private property rights then you support actual communism. @BenRyan ehem.  |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
slightycognizant said: You mean to repeal Section 230 or something as ridiculous as that? The 1st Amendment applies both ways. You don't get to force Twitter to accept you after you broke their, albeit long, TOS as that would be considered a violation of free speech in turn by you the law maker. Like why the fuck are people still up-in-arms about this. Trump still has a voice as he is the president of the United States. Why is it ridiculous? Why is the left suddenly and only in this one case against regulating corporations, in this case to maintain a public square that isn't completely fragmented into various echo chambers? Bernrika said: Mr_Question said: @Bernrika You have to rely on assumptions about my views in order to argue against me. I'm open to the idea of medicare for all. According to some polling, about half of Republican voters are in favor of it. Nice, except you vote and simp for the Politicians that openly opposed giving people health care. At best you are incredibly gullible at worst a hypocrite. It's not about having a right to Twitter specifically. It's about the end goal of maintaining *meaningful* free expression on the internet. One route would be to remove Twitter's liability shield from things posted on their platform unless they abide by the 1st Amendment. Find another bak-- I mean site. There are 80 millions of Trump voters can't you make your own sites? Dems are not actually offering medicare for all and I disagree with them on almost everything else. I'd like a politician who takes some of Bernie's positions and some of Trump's. Also Trump is not a typical Republican. He shifted the party to become more anti-war and skeptical of free trade. They made Parler but it was taken offline because of some fedposts on it. People have made illegal plots on Twitter, Google etc. countless times, and there was never any talk of taking down their whole websites. Those posts were simply removed. In other words, the system is effectively saying it won't let us make our own sites. |
| At this point I'm just watching the whole thing with a drink in my hand. I honestly have given up on both sides at this point. |
 |
lol really first time i support Merkel Germany's Merkel: Trump's Twitter eviction 'problematic' |
 |
| @Opticflash He never encouraged violence. There are countless examples of Dem politicians encouraging violence in a thinly veiled manner, such as Kamala's comments on BLM riots on how they won't and should not let up. But even for them I wouldn't advocate bans, because there is plausible deniabiity. Trump's comments don't even approach that level. Anything can be defined as "inflammatory". You're not thinking clearly at all if you think this is a good standard to censor people by. So far there are many affidavits of Republican observers saying they were kicked out, none from Dems. Not that it would make the situation better if observers from both sides were kicked out. The less people observing, the less legitimate the process is. It's not as if every Dem is dishonest. |
Mr_Question said: Why is it ridiculous? Why is the left suddenly and only in this one case against regulating corporations, in this case to maintain a public square that isn't completely fragmented into various echo chambers? It's ridiculous because people are acting like Twitter is an essential good or service, on the same level as food and water. You could perhaps make an argument about a public square for everyone, but that would need to be something run by the government like C-SPAN. It has nothing to do with a private company like Twitter. They made Parler but it was taken offline because of some fedposts on it. People have made illegal plots on Twitter, Google etc. countless times, and there was never any talk of taking down their whole websites. Those posts were simply removed. In other words, the system is effectively saying it won't let us make our own sites. The difference between Twitter and Parler is that Twitter has moderation. Mr_Question said: @Opticflash He never encouraged violence. There are countless examples of Dem politicians encouraging violence in a thinly veiled manner, such as Kamala's comments on BLM riots on how they won't and should not let up. But even for them I wouldn't advocate bans, because there is plausible deniabiity. Trump's comments don't even approach that level. Anything can be defined as "inflammatory". You're not thinking clearly at all if you think this is a good standard to censor people by. Trump was spreading provable lies about the election since he lost and called his supporters down to DC to stop certification of the vote. He literally told them to 'fight like hell' |
Anti-AgelastJan 11, 2021 7:22 PM
Anti-Agelast said: Mr_Question said: Why is it ridiculous? Why is the left suddenly and only in this one case against regulating corporations, in this case to maintain a public square that isn't completely fragmented into various echo chambers? It's ridiculous because people are acting like Twitter is an essential good or service, on the same level as food and water. You could perhaps make an argument about a public square for everyone, but that would need to be something run by the government like C-SPAN. It has nothing to do with a private company like Twitter. They made Parler but it was taken offline because of some fedposts on it. People have made illegal plots on Twitter, Google etc. countless times, and there was never any talk of taking down their whole websites. Those posts were simply removed. In other words, the system is effectively saying it won't let us make our own sites. The difference between Twitter and Parler is that Twitter has moderation. Mr_Question said: @Opticflash He never encouraged violence. There are countless examples of Dem politicians encouraging violence in a thinly veiled manner, such as Kamala's comments on BLM riots on how they won't and should not let up. But even for them I wouldn't advocate bans, because there is plausible deniabiity. Trump's comments don't even approach that level. Anything can be defined as "inflammatory". You're not thinking clearly at all if you think this is a good standard to censor people by. Trump was spreading provable lies about the election since he lost and called his supporters down to DC to stop certification of the vote. He literally told them to 'fight like hell' "Essential" is subjective. Or just regulate Twitter since everyone is already there. Again, where is this anti-regulation position coming from? Are you guys now fans of Reagan? Parler has moderation. What, they weren't removing things fast enough? What is the new standard? Remove any offending posts within a day or your website goes down? You're not thinking clearly. The state of the election is arguable and he's allowed to have his view. Nowhere did he tell them to stop the vote. You can fight politically and peacefully. Politicians always talk like that. |
| This is a non-answer. What service does Twitter provide that makes it worthy of being considered an essential service on the same letter as transportation or water? Or just regulate Twitter since everyone is already there. Regulating Twitter alone is pointless. You can have laws regulating social media like the EU, but that would just end up more or less where we are now. Again, where is this anti-regulation position coming from? Are you guys now fans of Reagan? People simply detect the hypocrisy of those who supposedly espouse free enterprise and smaller government asking for the opposite because they broke the same rules they were championing not long ago. It's fine for people to be denied service because they're gay but not because they incite violence? Gimme a break. Parler has moderation. What, they weren't removing things fast enough? What is the new standard? Remove any offending posts within a day or your website goes down? You're not thinking clearly. Twitter and Facebook have thousands of paid content moderators, as well as AI. Parler...has volunteers. If you're going to talk about content moderation standards, fine. Maybe Parler should adhere to industry standards then. The state of the election is arguable No it isn't. How many court cases and recounts must Trump lose before that is no longer a valid argument? Nowhere did he tell them to stop the vote. You can fight politically and peacefully. Politicians always talk like that. When you lie to people about how their election was stolen and tell them to go down to the Capitol and fight, and they end up beating people to death, setting up gallows and IEDs, then yes, you're inciting violence. |
Anti-Agelast said: This is a non-answer. What service does Twitter provide that makes it worthy of being considered an essential service on the same letter as transportation or water? Or just regulate Twitter since everyone is already there. Regulating Twitter alone is pointless. You can have laws regulating social media like the EU, but that would just end up more or less where we are now. Again, where is this anti-regulation position coming from? Are you guys now fans of Reagan? People simply detect the hypocrisy of those who supposedly espouse free enterprise and smaller government asking for the opposite because they broke the same rules they were championing not long ago. It's fine for people to be denied service because they're gay but not because they incite violence? Gimme a break. Parler has moderation. What, they weren't removing things fast enough? What is the new standard? Remove any offending posts within a day or your website goes down? You're not thinking clearly. Twitter and Facebook have thousands of paid content moderators, as well as AI. Parler...has volunteers. If you're going to talk about content moderation standards, fine. Maybe Parler should adhere to industry standards then. The state of the election is arguable No it isn't. How many court cases and recounts must Trump lose before that is no longer a valid argument? Nowhere did he tell them to stop the vote. You can fight politically and peacefully. Politicians always talk like that. When you lie to people about how their election was stolen and tell them to go down to the Capitol and fight, and they end up beating people to death, setting up gallows and IEDs, then yes, you're inciting violence. That is an answer. We simply decide what is essential. You can disagree, but there's no basis for saying either of our definitions is objectively correct. Well, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are pro-regulation except when it comes to Big Tech, some of the most powerful companies to ever exist. Industry standards? This level of corporate bootlicking is beyond the pale. Should MAL and every other website have to meet some arbitrary standard imposed by Big Brother Jack? You don't even know the nature of any of those cases. Who are you to decide whether or not there are valid arguments to be had about the election? People can read into Trump's words any number of things. Again, can you not fight politically, in a legal and peaceful way? What happened to "mostly peaceful protest"? This was a much better example of that than the antifa/BLM riots where many people died, billions in property damage was done and cities looked like infernos from above. Do you not want to respond regarding that quote from Kamala, a far more clear support of violence, namely those riots I just mentioned? |
| I'm mildly surprised. I expected it to be a lefty sausage-fest in here when I clicked on the thread. Good on those of you that still have the President's back. xD Anti-Agelast said: How many court cases and recounts must Trump lose before that is no longer a valid argument? Good question. Maybe once a court actually hears one we'll have an answer for you. Oh wait, where you under the misguided belief that any of his cases were actually even given the benefit of the doubt and not just outright dismissed without hearing any evidence or witness testimony? xD Anti-Agelast said: When you lie to people about how their election was stolen and tell them to go down to the Capitol and fight, and they end up beating people to death, setting up gallows and IEDs, then yes, you're inciting violence. How many flipped over police cars had "Trump" spray-painted on them again? |
Tracer_SenpaiJan 11, 2021 9:12 PM
Speed is Life - 1st ID... patch on my shoulder. |
Tracer_Senpai said: Anti-Agelast said: How many court cases and recounts must Trump lose before that is no longer a valid argument? Good question. Maybe once a court actually hears one we'll have an answer for you. Oh wait, where you under the misguided belief that any of his cases were actually even given the benefit of the doubt and not just outright dismissed without hearing any evidence or witness testimony? xD false they did hear it out look up the transcripts. What the lawyers said is different then what's being argued outside of court. because lying in a court is PREJURY |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
| "It"? There is/was way more than one case. xD |
| Speed is Life - 1st ID... patch on my shoulder. |
yes and they all were heard and dismissed due to LACK OF EVIDENCE. transcripts are public domain go look them up. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
Mr_Question said: Well, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are pro-regulation except when it comes to Big Tech, some of the most powerful companies to ever exist. I mean if you want an actual answer to this it's because the proposed regulations by right wingers are garbage and to illustrate the point I'll take the two most popular or most often referenced examples. 1. Repealing Section 230 People who tend to make this claim have no idea what the purpose of the legislation is in any scale. The primary purpose of Section 230 is to make it so websites that allow users to post content, comment or host discussions aren't liable for the content posted by the users. It's the legal foundation that has allowed the internet to grow as a hotbed for dispersing information and discussion. Repealing this law would have the opposite effect right wingers claim, it would result in much more extreme moderation, extremely tightened rules on acceptable content and a rapid increase in the use of automated detection and removal of users and content. Any thing that could fall under fair use would also be at risk because most websites simply won't want to take the risk and remove any content that could put them in legal jeopardy. If you're arguing for free speech on the internet this is objectively one of the worst things you could advocate for due to the massive impact on the internet as a whole. 2. Adding arbitrary regulations to maintain Section 230 protections such as the platform maintaining a "neutral stance." This just flat out violates the first amendment. Congress cannot make any law that would result in abridging freedom of speech and Congress would effectively be deciding what is an acceptable level of "neutral" for a platform to not be punished with legal jeopardy. It also has a functional problem because who gets to decide when a platform is neutral or has to be neutral? Is it the people in power? Is it a committee? Is it based on just random public discourse? Essentially what I'm saying is people who are advocating for regulation, especially right wingers in this case, have a primary focus on Section 230 which I would argue legislatively is the wrong angle to attack internet platforms. If you want to like hit Amazon with antitrust laws then that's a debate to be had. |
Mr_Question said: That is an answer. We simply decide what is essential. You can disagree, but there's no basis for saying either of our definitions is objectively correct. No, that actually isn't an answer. What service does Twitter provide that make you believe they should be treated like eater or transportation? Well, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are pro-regulation except when it comes to Big Tech, some of the most powerful companies to ever exist. Tech companies enforcing their own ToS is not within the scope of why they need regulation. Industry standards? This level of corporate bootlicking is beyond the pale. Should MAL and every other website have to meet some arbitrary standard imposed by Big Brother Jack? You were the one who brought up moderation standards. Finding out what is common in the industry is part of setting such standards. When one company has much worse standards than everyone else in the industry which actually leads to people being harmed. People can read into Trump's words any number of things. Again, can you not fight politically, in a legal and peaceful way? When a crowd starts chanting "Hang Mike Pence" and you send them over to Mike Pence and tell them to fight, that is indeed inciting violence. |
| @GamerDLM Poland is now fining big tech companies $2.2 million anytime they censor lawful speech. What do you make of this? What will be the result? @Anti-Agelast Why do we need public transport? People can walk. We decide that it's important though, and so we have public transport. So Kamala is now responsible for every BLM chant? Your refusal to deal with the double standard reveals you as not arguing in good faith. |
Mr_QuestionJan 11, 2021 10:03 PM
Karote said: @Opticflash I asked you for evidence of Biden making racist or sexist tweets, as you claimed he did. Then you now claim you aren't sure? Do you not see how dishonest you are here? Alright dude, alright, he didn't make any racist tweet, but nothing of that changes the fact that twitter gives preferential treatment for certain people.Furthermore, do you know what type of news source Fox News is? It's a new source that panders to the American far right, meaning they will skewer word or statement to fit the right's agenda regardless of whether it is accurate or not. For instance, calling someone "you're a lovely person" isn't sexism in any way, nor does it necessarily indicate hostile intent. People do this all the time by trying to maintain a standard of professionalism towards bitter customers. It could've been on CNN or BBC I would have done the same thing, as long as the fact is still there, doesn't matter from where it comes from, it's a fact. Better counter-attack the argument, not who's arguing it, instead of saying it's "Far-right", "fascist", "neo-nazi", can't people just bother just talking about the study subject, or in other words, going to the purpose of the meeting? As for the sexist case, that goes under interpretation, most people wouldn't call it sexist, but did you forget some twitter SJW's may find it sexist? Shouldn't you agree with that too? That's the way I buy things for those who blindly support politicians. Biden has a historical racist profile, and that won't change regardless from where the sources come from. The statements themselves are facts, however politically biased news sources twist those statements to fit an agenda, that is the problem here. You quoted Fox News articles which always panders to the far right. The problem isn't what Biden said, the problem is the interpretation of what Biden said, in which case it is your interpretation that Biden made a deliberately sexist remark because that's what the Fox News article said. In your first article, Biden said "You're a lovely person" in which it wasn't clear whether he was saying so out of professionalism, or being snarky with hostile intent. Certainly it wasn't sexism, but Fox News wants its viewers to think that way. See the problem? If CNN addressed that scenario, they would likely be stating how rude the female host was rather than stating that Biden is a sexist because he said "You're a lovely person", in which sexism wouldn't even cross your mind. In your second article, some quotes are valid - (2020) “You ain’t black.” (it may have been a bad joke, but certainly it alienates potential supporters), (2007) "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" which is racist in which Biden indeed should be criticized for, and he was. The others are just desperate attempts from the far right. |
Mr_Question said: @GamerDLM Poland is now fining big tech companies $2.2 million anytime they censor lawful speech. What do you make of this? What will be the result?. nothing because they have no jurisdiction in other countries and citizens outside there country. also U.S can't do that because the "free market." people walked themselves into a corner and gave corporations "personhood." giving them the same rights as a single individual. |
GrimAtramentJan 11, 2021 10:14 PM
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
Mr_Question said: @GamerDLM Poland is now fining big tech companies $2.2 million anytime they censor lawful speech. What do you make of this? What will be the result? @Anti-Agelast Why do we need public transport? People can walk. We decide that it's important though, and so we have public transport. So Kamala is now responsible for every BLM chant? Your refusal to deal with the double standard reveals you as not arguing in good faith. That would violate the first amendment if implemented in the United States. Congress cannot pass legislation that abridges/curtails freedom of speech. The Supreme court recognized corporations as a personhood extending to them the right of free speech. Passing a law that would fine them for an expression of speech (in this case censorship) would be a violation of the first amendment as a result. Because again it's Congress passing a law that would abridge freedom of speech unless they strip personhood rights from corporations which again is not necessarily a bad debate. If you're asking my opinion on what another country is doing then who cares as long as there's a functional basis to prove it. |
GamerDLM said: Mr_Question said: @GamerDLM Poland is now fining big tech companies $2.2 million anytime they censor lawful speech. What do you make of this? What will be the result? @Anti-Agelast Why do we need public transport? People can walk. We decide that it's important though, and so we have public transport. So Kamala is now responsible for every BLM chant? Your refusal to deal with the double standard reveals you as not arguing in good faith. That would violate the first amendment if implemented in the United States. Congress cannot pass legislation that abridges/curtails freedom of speech. The Supreme court recognized corporations as a personhood extending to them the right of free speech. Passing a law that would fine them for an expression of speech (in this case censorship) would be a violation of the first amendment as a result. Because again it's Congress passing a law that would abridge freedom of speech unless they strip personhood rights from corporations which again is not necessarily a bad debate. If you're asking my opinion on what another country is doing then who cares as long as there's a functional basis to prove it. How about if instead of fines, Congress threatens to remove Twitter's liability shield for content posted on their website if they don't allow all speech under the 1st Amendment? There's no violation of Twitter's free speech. They're simply being offered a deal. Yeah, I have never supported this whole personhood of corporations standard. |
Mr_Question said: @Opticflash He never encouraged violence. There are countless examples of Dem politicians encouraging violence in a thinly veiled manner, such as Kamala's comments on BLM riots on how they won't and should not let up. But even for them I wouldn't advocate bans, because there is plausible deniabiity. Trump's comments don't even approach that level. Anything can be defined as "inflammatory". You're not thinking clearly at all if you think this is a good standard to censor people by. So far there are many affidavits of Republican observers saying they were kicked out, none from Dems. Not that it would make the situation better if observers from both sides were kicked out. The less people observing, the less legitimate the process is. It's not as if every Dem is dishonest. He didn't directly order violence, however he did what he could to add fuel to it first by giving a rally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh3cbd7niTQ&ab_channel=WashingtonPost and then by the Twitter video where he stated "...where they could take it away from all of us, from you, from our country. This is a fraudulent election..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sma-oAJv91o&ab_channel=BloombergQuicktake%3ANow during the protest. You are being completely intellectually dishonest here if you don't regard this as an incendiary remark that only serves to fuel the fire. This is a good standard, because remarks that incite violence cause problems. Several people died as a result. Please show videos of past Democrats making similar remarks. Can you show evidence of these affidavits and explain why we should believe them? |
Mr_Question said: GamerDLM said: That would violate the first amendment if implemented in the United States. Congress cannot pass legislation that abridges/curtails freedom of speech. The Supreme court recognized corporations as a personhood extending to them the right of free speech. Passing a law that would fine them for an expression of speech (in this case censorship) would be a violation of the first amendment as a result. Because again it's Congress passing a law that would abridge freedom of speech unless they strip personhood rights from corporations which again is not necessarily a bad debate. If you're asking my opinion on what another country is doing then who cares as long as there's a functional basis to prove it. How about if instead of fines, Congress threatens to remove Twitter's liability shield for content posted on their website if they don't allow all speech under the 1st Amendment? There's no violation of Twitter's free speech. They're simply being offered a deal. Yeah, I have never supported this whole personhood of corporations standard. That's still violating the first amendment and is literally the argument I already presented. You literally just rephrased it and presented it back to me as if my answer will change. Private entities don't have to abide by the first amendment but Congress and government organizations do. It's curtailing freedom of speech by threatening them with legal jeopardy that's not a deal that's at best extortion and blatantly violating the first amendment. |
| @OpticFlash You're being intellectually lazy and reading into his statements in an unhinged way. It doesn't matter how many times you restate your emotional response to his statements. Your refusal to deal with the double standard regarding Kamala's statement marks you as someone arguing in bad faith. Her statement is not similar, it's much worse. There's also video evidence of observers being made to leave and windows boarded up. It's mainstream news that the video in which suitcases of ballots were pulled from under desk happened after all observers were gone. The lack of observation by itself calls the vote count into question. Look it up if you're actually curious. I'd rather focus on big tech issues in this thread. GamerDLM said: That's still violating the first amendment and is literally the argument I already presented. You literally just rephrased it and presented it back to me as if my answer will change. Private entities don't have to abide by the first amendment but Congress and government organizations do. It's curtailing freedom of speech by threatening them with legal jeopardy that's not a deal that's at best extortion and blatantly violating the first amendment. They don't have a right to that liability protection. We could just start talking about removing it and then we'll see if they come to the table and try to work something out. |
Mr_QuestionJan 11, 2021 10:48 PM
| @Mr_Question closed up window happened after a deranged mob started banging on them and trying to break them we have videos from inside of the booths that show this before they |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
Mr_Question said: @OpticFlash You're being intellectually lazy and reading into his statements in an unhinged way. It doesn't matter how many times you restate your emotional response to his statements. Nope. It's not how I interpret it or personally feel about his message, it's how others, particularly the people protesting, take the message. Upon hearing something like this, the mobsters will become on average more angry by any reasonable statistical measure. This is the problem in which you refuse to acknowledge. Mr_Question said: Your refusal to deal with the double standard regarding Kamala's statement marks you as someone arguing in bad faith. Her statement is not similar, it's much worse. I asked you to provide me evidence because I frankly don't have time to look up what she said. Mr_Question said: There's also video evidence of observers being made to leave and windows boarded up. It's mainstream news that the video in which suitcases of ballots were pulled from under desk happened after all observers were gone. The lack of observation by itself calls the vote count into question. Look it up if you're actually curious. Show me these videos then, because Googling "Republican observers" all lead to links of articles that state that there is no evidence of this. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/theres-no-evidence-to-support-claims-that-election-observers-were-blocked-from-counting-rooms.html https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/12/donald-trump/trumps-wrong-claim-election-observers-were-barred-/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/trump-campaign-was-not-denied-access-philadelphias-ballot-count/ Or are we going to claim Google along with pretty much all of the media (besides Fox News) is politically biased? Now's your turn to present actual, legitimate evidence. Mr_Question said: I'd rather focus on big tech issues in this thread. Funny, because the actual issue here isn't big tech, but what is reasonable or not. If you shoot someone in an act other than self defense, you get stopped. If you rob a store, you get stopped. If you incite violence, you should get stopped, full stop. This is coming from a degree of reasonability and has nothing to do with free speech or big tech. |
OpticflashJan 11, 2021 11:03 PM
Mr_Question said: @OpticFlash You're being intellectually lazy and reading into his statements in an unhinged way. It doesn't matter how many times you restate your emotional response to his statements. Your refusal to deal with the double standard regarding Kamala's statement marks you as someone arguing in bad faith. Her statement is not similar, it's much worse. There's also video evidence of observers being made to leave and windows boarded up. It's mainstream news that the video in which suitcases of ballots were pulled from under desk happened after all observers were gone. The lack of observation by itself calls the vote count into question. Look it up if you're actually curious. I'd rather focus on big tech issues in this thread. GamerDLM said: That's still violating the first amendment and is literally the argument I already presented. You literally just rephrased it and presented it back to me as if my answer will change. Private entities don't have to abide by the first amendment but Congress and government organizations do. It's curtailing freedom of speech by threatening them with legal jeopardy that's not a deal that's at best extortion and blatantly violating the first amendment. They don't have a right to that liability protection. We could just start talking about removing it and then we'll see if they come to the table and try to work something out. Congress can't arbitrarily decide who gets liability protections after it has been established law since the 90s for the purpose of the government controlling freedom of speech on platforms. No matter how you spin the scenario Congress is inserting itself as a force dictating speech on the internet and that is explicitly violating the first amendment. As soon as Congress asserts itself as a deciding factor in whether a platform has protected free speech they are violating the fundamental element of the first amendment. There is no logical basis to judge a platform as being liable for user content and any attempts to pursue legislation in the same vein as removing Section 230 protections is the most blatant attack on free speech online that you can possibly create. |
| @OpticFlash That's complete lunacy. But okay, now Kamala gets held accountable for everything BLM and antifa did over the summer. It's fine if you want to pretend she never said it. Election observers were kept in some cases 100 feet away, other times told counting was over for the night and then it continued at 4 am after everyone was gone. @GamerDLM It doesn't have to be arbitrary. I'm not saying only apply it to Twitter. Eh, that's your interpretation of what Congress would be doing there. Anyway, maybe the easiest way around is to say corporations are in fact not people. It was always a dumb standard, as I said, and it seemed like you agreed. |
| @Mr_Question yes corporations being people is a dumb standard, but no politician in today's time would back trying to put that disaster back in the Pandora's box it came out of. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
hazarddex said: @Mr_Question yes corporations being people is a dumb standard, but no politician in today's time would back trying to put that disaster back in the Pandora's box it came out of. Also there is a double standard anyway, in that they are not allowing Parler to have their free speech. So Big Tech has declared war on anyone who dares stand in the way of them becoming the Ministry of Truth. In the face of this, I couldn't care less about whatever legalism gets in the way of maintaining a free exchange of ideas on the internet. You say corporations are people and therefore they can crucify an entire side of the political spectrum with impunity? I say we find the quickest route around them being able to do that. Why should I be ideological about it? I care about results. |
Mr_Question said: It doesn't have to be arbitrary. I'm not saying only apply it to Twitter. Eh, that's your interpretation of what Congress would be doing there. Anyway, maybe the easiest way around is to say corporations are in fact not people. It was always a dumb standard, as I said, and it seemed like you agreed. Removing liability protections should never be on the table period, that's attacking the foundation that permits broad user generated content on the internet. I'm sure there's room to argue removing the aspects of corporations being people. But politicians broadly will never do it because first and foremost it cuts into their donation base because money = speech, and more specifically it means religion can't be incorporated into business policy and used as a legal defense which is something Republicans will never side with. |
| i don't think op knows what censorship even means lmao |
| non anonymous social media was a mistake. That is all. like 95% of people on these platforms have nothing good to say or anything to offer. |
GamerDLM said: Mr_Question said: It doesn't have to be arbitrary. I'm not saying only apply it to Twitter. Eh, that's your interpretation of what Congress would be doing there. Anyway, maybe the easiest way around is to say corporations are in fact not people. It was always a dumb standard, as I said, and it seemed like you agreed. Removing liability protections should never be on the table period, that's attacking the foundation that permits broad user generated content on the internet. I'm sure there's room to argue removing the aspects of corporations being people. But politicians broadly will never do it because first and foremost it cuts into their donation base because money = speech, and more specifically it means religion can't be incorporated into business policy and used as a legal defense which is something Republicans will never side with. Well, what if we interpret the Constitution in a liberal way and think in terms of "the spirit of the law". Then perhaps that can be on the table regarding the monopolistic big tech companies in particular, in that it results in a freer exchange of ideas, thus being more in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. |
Mr_Question said: GamerDLM said: Removing liability protections should never be on the table period, that's attacking the foundation that permits broad user generated content on the internet. I'm sure there's room to argue removing the aspects of corporations being people. But politicians broadly will never do it because first and foremost it cuts into their donation base because money = speech, and more specifically it means religion can't be incorporated into business policy and used as a legal defense which is something Republicans will never side with. Well, what if we interpret the Constitution in a liberal way and think in terms of "the spirit of the law". Then perhaps that can be on the table regarding the monopolistic big tech companies in particular, in that it results in a freer exchange of ideas, thus being more in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. The spirit of the first amendment is to keep the government from interfering in public discussions and prevent them from establishing a state religion. That's the entire purpose of the amendment. Removing the protections is effectively the government shutting down a platform by putting it in legal jeopardy. Broadly removing all protections means user generated content would effectively be dead on the internet unless it goes through a massive approval process by the platforms to ensure that nothing mildly problematic makes it through. The government can order specific types of content that is illegal to be removed as soon as the service is made aware of the content (which they do in cases of copyright and sex trafficking), but the government forcing a platform to host content is extremely against the spirit of the amendment. |
Bob-o-Dominador said: You mean the instances of vandalism at the start that no figure supported made by unorganized people that later was followed by BLM (the organization) waves of protests that where peacefull, except by the cops and some instances of people that couldn't even be linked to the organization and had no intetion of dismantling democracy. And an ideology? I don't know, it seems a little diferent from the terrorist attack (not vandalism, since they shoot and planed to kidnap the politicians there), attempt of coup, that was incited by Trump and was praised by basically every rigth winger that is getting punished from doing it rigth now. Funny, how leftist seem to have forgotten about CHAZ... when "protesters" ACTUALLY laid SIEGE and TOOK-OVER an entire Seattle neighborhood? Or when they burned down police buildings, attacked police officers, robbed people, destroyed small businesses and looted them. Not only did leftist supported and encouraged BLM and ANTIFA violence on social media, they actively bailed them out. But of course that doesn't violate the terms of service of ministry of truth. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/style/minnesota-freedom-fund-bail-george-floyd-protests.html    Waves02 said: Hahaha, that's hilarious. Since he posted so many "ignore the votes" tweets, it's no wonder Twitter gave him a suspension. If only they could suspend him from presidency as well.. oh wait! That's coming up! Amazing. Yes Silicon Valley should be deciding who should be a president and for how long. |
 “There is great satisfaction in fighting for the sake of gaining power, but it’s joyless to fight for the sake of maintaining it.” – Reinhard Von Lohengramm |
GamerDLM said: Mr_Question said: Well, what if we interpret the Constitution in a liberal way and think in terms of "the spirit of the law". Then perhaps that can be on the table regarding the monopolistic big tech companies in particular, in that it results in a freer exchange of ideas, thus being more in the spirit of the 1st Amendment. The spirit of the first amendment is to keep the government from interfering in public discussions and prevent them from establishing a state religion. That's the entire purpose of the amendment. Removing the protections is effectively the government shutting down a platform by putting it in legal jeopardy. Broadly removing all protections means user generated content would effectively be dead on the internet unless it goes through a massive approval process by the platforms to ensure that nothing mildly problematic makes it through. The government can order specific types of content that is illegal to be removed as soon as the service is made aware of the content (which they do in cases of copyright and sex trafficking), but the government forcing a platform to host content is extremely against the spirit of the amendment. That's a matter of interpretation. Once you allow the "spirit of the law" to take over, many new pathways open up. In fact, maybe too many pathways, and therefore perhaps liberals should have been more careful with this idea. But here we are, and so I can say that the spirit of the law allows us to make an exception to this silly "corporations are people" idea in the particular case of monopolistic big tech. There are already outright exceptions to the 1st Amendment, so surely there can be an exception to "corporations are people". |
149597871 said: Meusnier said: Another point would be the vote manipulations that social networks made much easier thanks to the very rapid spread of news, fake or not. A good tool of propaganda? Yes. An necessary tool for democracy? I doubt it. While I agree with what you say, I believe "inevitable" is a better word than "necessary." The average person spends hours on these social media and obsessively checks their phone hundreds of times each day. As you said, it is a good tool for propaganda, arguably the best tool, perhaps. Such a withdrawal would give a tremendous advantage to your political opponents. In other words, either everyone stops or nobody stops. The former scenario seems like the better one, but the only practical way of achieving it is through some law that prohibits politicians from using the site to their benefit. I agree, this is a good point. In the article, I first translated "inevitable" by "essential", but it can not be translated by "necessary" in the second instance (although "inevitable" can be translated by "necessary" in other contexts; this is slightly confusing). It was from this article: "Social networks have become so powerful and essential [indispensable] to the diffusion of information and the democratic expression that they should come under public control." Ces réseaux sociaux sont devenus si puissants et si indispensables à la diffusion de l’information et à l’expression démocratique qu’ils devraient passer sous contrôle public. https://www.valeursactuelles.com/monde/roose-bienvenue-dans-lamerique-de-joe-biden-comment-les-democrates-tuent-la-democratie-127350 N.B. For those who might read from there, I do not share the views of this article. |
Mr_Question said: Dems are not actually offering medicare for all and I disagree with them on almost everything else. I'd like a politician who takes some of Bernie's positions and some of Trump's. Also Trump is not a typical Republican. He shifted the party to become more anti-war and skeptical of free trade. They made Parler but it was taken offline because of some fedposts on it. People have made illegal plots on Twitter, Google etc. countless times, and there was never any talk of taking down their whole websites. Those posts were simply removed. Parler refuses to remove terrorism. That's why it was removed. Twitter (On average) tries to remove actual terrorist threats and moderate itself. In other words, the system is effectively saying it won't let us make our own sites. Have you tried making a site where you don't plot terrorist attacks? Let us know how it works. But well, you can always find another bakery, I mean web-host that allows you to plot terrorist attacks, don't you? |
FreeThought said: So you don't even have an counter argument. You will just double down in the pushing of your agenda and post all those emotionaly manipulative propaganda? God, you are the fucking worst.Funny, how leftist seem to have forgotten about CHAZ... when "protesters" ACTUALLY laid SIEGE and TOOK-OVER an entire Seattle neighborhood? Or when they burned down police buildings, attacked police officers, robbed people, destroyed small businesses and looted them. Not only did leftist supported and encouraged BLM and ANTIFA violence on social media, they actively bailed them out. But of course that doesn't violate the terms of service of ministry of truth. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/style/minnesota-freedom-fund-bail-george-floyd-protests.html So what? You can do a collage of ominous fire, any one can. But here, something even better than a collage: An arsonist attack that was disavowed by the overwelming majority of all leftits actually is much less bad than a coup attempt that was made and encourajed by far rigth politicians and public figures, the left don't try to overturn democracy and KILL the people on the other side, what do you think they would be doing with this stuff?  And if you still want a collage, here some sowing the craziness going on there: Nothing more patriotic than trowing American flags away to get the ones of the loser of the election. |
| heh. |
Bernrika said: Mr_Question said: Dems are not actually offering medicare for all and I disagree with them on almost everything else. I'd like a politician who takes some of Bernie's positions and some of Trump's. Also Trump is not a typical Republican. He shifted the party to become more anti-war and skeptical of free trade. They made Parler but it was taken offline because of some fedposts on it. People have made illegal plots on Twitter, Google etc. countless times, and there was never any talk of taking down their whole websites. Those posts were simply removed. Parler refuses to remove terrorism. That's why it was removed. Twitter (On average) tries to remove actual terrorist threats and moderate itself. lol... Twitter "on average" removes it? What kind of legal standard is that? |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |