- Joined
- Oct 20, 2018
- Messages
- 45,508
- Reaction score
- 30,675
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Can you quote the part of the statute that indicates your opinion/approval is required before any political content is censored?Can you quote the part of the Statute that indicates Congress anticipates that sites would censor content based on the political opinion expressed and that it would be allowed or can't you.
Told ya.Can you quote the part of the statute that indicates your opinion/approval is required before any political content is censored?
Yep, you have told me, and every other member who reads this thread, that you are dishonest and ignore facts that don’t support your opinions.Told ya.
Reality has kicked you in the butt.Yep, you have told me, and every other member who reads this thread, that you are dishonest and ignore facts that don’t support your opinions.
Why are you continuing to embarrass yourself?Reality has kicked you in the butt.
Jack Dorsey admitted Twitter does what you keep denying they do.Why are you continuing to embarrass yourself?
Your lies have been completely busted.
The language of Section 230 doesn’t support any of the lies you’ve been spouting.
This is new to you?Social media censors.
Jack Dorsey acknowledged that his company follows the law as outlined in Section 230.Jack Dorsey admitted it ...
1. I haven’t denied that Twitter censors. It is their legitimate legal right.Jack Dorsey admitted Twitter does what you keep denying they do.
Everyone else realizes it now.
You've got a serious problem, my friend.
If the Law was crafted to give Twitter the legal right to censor political speech and still retain legal immunity, why did Dorsey scramble so fast to admit they made a mistake in order to keep Twitter's legal immunity?1. I haven’t denied that Twitter censors. It is their legitimate legal right.
You should learn to deal with that fact.
2. You don’t speak for anyone but yourself.
3.
(a) Lying is your problem.
(b) I’m not your friend. I have no use people who lie.
^^ More unsupported fiction.If the Law was crafted to give Twitter the legal right to censor political speech and still retain legal immunity, why did Dorsey scramble so fast to admit they made a mistake in order to keep Twitter's legal immunity?
To paraphrase Sen. Feinstein, Denialism lives loudly within you.
Ah, yet another question to be added to the list of those you dare not answer honestly.^^ More unsupported fiction.
If you actually believed your own lies you would post proof (like I have) instead of more empty partisan blathering.Ah, yet another question to be added to the list of those you dare not answer honestly.
Look, you made a mistake misreading the Law because you were driven by partisanship and you thought you were expected to take the position you did. It's understandable on that level.
You see it happen a lot around here when ideology overrides common sense.
But your simple mistake turned into a huge rolling blunder when you kept insisting it wasn't a mistake, and since then you've done nothing but compound your error.
Current events should have driven that point home like a nail gun to the temple. Okay ... maybe that's overly dramatic.
Just say you misinterpreted the intent of Section 230 and there'll be no need to say any more about it.
Your proof ... wasn't.If you actually believed your own lies you would post proof (like I have) instead of more empty partisan blathering.
You’re going to tell me about real life events? You, the same person who repeatedly has made claims, offering zero evidence?Your proof ... wasn't.
That's why your answers to what I asked ... haven't been.
And unfortunately for you, real life events have closed in around you as proof you have been wrong.
Are you aware of those events?
Well ... that's another question for the list of questions you're too afraid to answer honestly.You’re going to tell me about real life events? You, the same person who repeatedly has made claims, offering zero evidence?
Pass.
Try a new approach. Post facts supported by links, like I have.Well ... that's another question for the list of questions you're too afraid to answer honestly.
Ain't good for your mental health, my friend.
Good Robot!I am looking forward to the debate. I hear it is on foreign policy. If so, Trump's loaded for bear. And I am sure he will take the opportunity to point out how Biden handled things. You know everywhere Biden and Hunter went Hunter was the vacuum cleaner sucking up all the quid pro quos to enrich his family. Should be a hoot!
Yes the vacuum cleaner line is Trump's latest and that is why I used it. And I have no doubt he will work it in during the debate.Good Robot!
Oh yes. I should have thanked you for posting confirmation of what I was trying to tell you - even though you still don't realize it. Is that what you wanted to hear? Friends again?Try a new approach. Post facts supported by links, like I have.
More fiction.Oh yes. I should have thanked you for posting confirmation of what I was trying to tell you - even though you still don't realize it. Is that what you wanted to hear? Friends again?
Geez.More fiction.
Are you ever going to stop blathering and post proof of your beliefs.Geez.
You're not even aware that what you posted disproved your own hypothesis.
I guess then I shouldn't be surprised that you're also not aware that Twitter is in trouble for doing what you say is not a problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?