The fruit is producing a retort that stands on its merits. I have yet to hear any arguments that effectively defend the actions of the former president. Everything from the length of time he took in making public statements to call off the mob, to his efforts to undo the electoral process by introducing fake electors and pressuring state election officials.
Completely agree with this statement.
and also with this one. Wouldn't it be a reasonable and measured response to censor only that which absolutely must be censored, i.e. porn, violent videos, the sort of thing that section 230 was protecting carriers and Internet web sites from the liabilities related to their users posting that sort of thing? (Rather than how those Internet web sites have contorted and abused it's intent).
True, there are other social media sites just as there are other utility companies. The difference being is that the Internet erases geographical location as a barrier or discriminator between these social media sites, which isn't the case for utility companies.
You are not trying to convince me, but the audience as a whole. What the reader's of this thread just witnessed is a guy that makes rash statements without foundation. Its clear to us all that apparently you don't have the goods. But you are not alone. It was a trick question, as there is no counter-narrative.
Agree to disagree... I thought the "let that sink in" bit was funny as shit. I do love a good dad joke, though.
There's no point in rehashing conversations that have already taken place. At the end of the day Cheney"s vendetta cost her, her seat.
The fact that this search algorithm would false-positive millions of "normal" accounts backed by an actual person (yes, right-wingers are not bots), explains how complex it is to accurately identify bot accounts.
Yes, the entire gender ideology thing can be broken down into political lean. You have radicals that think boys can be girls and visa versa. That's nutbag bonkers ideology that's almost completely found on the left, as well as the censoring of these basic facts of realities.
Katlyn Jenner is despised by the gender activists because he states the realities, like men shouldn't be competing against women in sports.
You don't see it serious that a guy that was as mainstream as a Twitter CEO said, in public, that he would cheer on Maoist mass slaughter? This is sounding more and more that you might have sympathies with his statement.
Direct me to a place (link please) where you believe you have supported your statement. Again, there is no counter narrative, and you certainly do not have one. Wishful thinking is not argument. Right now, you are exposed as 'all hat, no cattle" .... Personally, I would have more pride than that and would attempt to defend myself, but Trump supporters largely have no shame or they would be supporting Trump.
Mainstream? I didn't even know who the guy was until you mentioned him. Let's look at the statement:
You gotta be kidding me. The left is whining and moaning because Musk wants free speech and they claim if conservatives aren't censored, they will say mean things or spread disinformation, which is just facts they don't want to see the light of day, like Hunter's laptop, that masks don't work, that the vaccines were experimental, etc.
That's where things would return to, but the twist Musk brings in is the expectation of free speech absolutism that can easily be construed by some as the ability to post the content they want without moderation. The challenge for social media companies is they are platforms that can amplify all sorts of information, which is why sorting out how to best moderate that is going to be really tricky.
That, however, still doesn't make them a "utility", and that model would put in place moderation policies closer to what people like Musk are bucking.
but yet tons of comedians and jokes and satire are still posted on there right . . .
so saying comedy is now allowed would be factually inaccurate because it was always allowed
and you claiming they started banning satirical posts is also factually inaccurate because you gave an example of one member based on your opinion and no factual info while many more do post satire
so i guess instead of satire your post was just factually wrong then the way you wrote it
Mike Pence's argument is akin to the same thing, where everyone is free to practice Christianity.
ahh i see your mistake and where your huge failure is now
Why are you worried about share price? Am I missing something here? He went from 10% stake in a publicly traded company to buying it outright. He now owns it. I would imagine it will soon be removed from market trading.
www.rawstory.com
I dunno about it being tricky or not. It really depends on the guidelines put into place and the definitions those guidelines use.
That's where things would return to, but the twist Musk brings in is the expectation of free speech absolutism that can easily be construed by some as the ability to post the content they want without moderation. The challenge for social media companies is they are platforms that can amplify all sorts of information, which is why sorting out how to best moderate that is going to be really tricky.
This curation that you speak of is already a function of a publisher and less so a function of a platform.
Meh. It's the closest analogy which fits. Hell, a great deal of the Internet actually 'runs' on the physical telecommunication networks, doesn't it?
But Pence was not finished. He also suggested that the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority has a duty to side with one faith over another.
Today, that means the GOP's embrace of Christian nationalism.
"You know, I said today here in Houston that the source of our nation's greatness has always been our faith in God, our freedom, and our vast natural resources. And the good news is, that after four years of the Trump-Pence administration, I'm confident that we have a pro-religious freedom majority on the Supreme Court of the United States. And I'm confident that come Election Day, November the 8th, you're gonna see that freedom majority around the country turn out and vote pro-freedom majorities in the House, and in the Senate, and in statehouses around the country," Pence said. "So stay tuned, Larry. Help is on the way."
Mike Pence: Americans have no right to 'freedom from religion'
Former Vice President Mike Pence claimed during a Wednesday appearance on Fox Business that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect Americans from having other people's faiths forced upon them."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or...
ahh i see your mistake and where your huge failure is now
you think this is an argument/debate when the reality is i simply pointed out your statements are, indeed, not facts
nothing will change this fact but by all means if your feelings disagree PLEASE simply prove your statements to be facts
we already know you won't, cause you cant . . . . . .why . . because once again your statement were indeed not facts, cant wait to see what you do!
