- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 51,527
- Reaction score
- 44,742
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
The reality is that NOBODY is entitled to an account on a private business.
Making a satirical joke based in reality isn't hateful. It's reality. Sorry that reality hurts your feelings.
"Hate speech" is a very subjective term that we've watched be expanded beyond all reasonable proportions in recent years.No hate speech for one.
Private property is not a public square.
Removing Section 230 protections results in more censorship, not less. Are you aware of this?
"Hate speech" is a very subjective term that we've watched be expanded beyond all reasonable proportions in recent years.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are no threats of violence involved, then there's nothing actionable.
.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!So conservative accounts are just free loaders and worthless to social media?
What concerns you doesn't matter because you setting TOS for an imaginary social media company is about as relevant as what color you think unicorns crap."Hate speech" is a very subjective term that we've watched be expanded beyond all reasonable proportions in recent years.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are no threats of violence involved, then there's nothing actionable.
.
Sorry, but I call bullshit on that.And what I've been trying to explain this whole time is that the dichotomy you have in your mind between platforms and publishers isn't real.
While the point of section 230 is to protect 'interactive computing services' from what crap their users post, fair enough, it doesn't give those 'interactive computing services' free reign to suppress speech which they disagree with, which is exactly what they've been doing.The terms you use have no legal meaning. "Platforms" don't get special protections - every site on the internet gets those protections. That's the whole point of Section 230.
No, what I said was that it may need considered revision, that's not the same as demanding revision all to one political lean.The conversation between you and I began when you claimed you wanted to "revise" Section 230 without "changing" it.
I stand by what I posted. It is not from an 'upset' perspective. Too bad that you consider it as TL;DR. Do opinions other than what you agree with often suffer from the same fate? I wonder.The rest of your TL;DR post seems a little upset. Maybe you should take a step back for a couple of minutes?
Ignored due to the source. Try harder to engage in something more meaningful and thoughtful, if you can.Tell us the characteristics of a common carrier...
Musk isn't a genius; he just clumsily plays one on TV (and Twitter).More and more Musk is reminding me of Howard Hughes. Brillant but as time goes on, he's acting weirder and weirder.
He wants to gamble about 1/2 his wealth on F'ing Twitter??? lol What?
We are a country of laws. You break the law you pay the price.....you don't get to hide behind free speech. Let's face it the right only likes the freedom of choice and freedom of speech when it aligns with their choices and their opinions.
The Babylon Bee's Twitter Account Was Suspended, But That Made Its Story Go Viral
If Twitter's goal had been to remove the harmful content, it backfired spectacularlywww.forbes.com
Just as you wanting hate speech to be against the TOS if Musk takes over doesn't matter.What concerns you doesn't matter because you setting TOS for an imaginary social media company is about as relevant as what color you think unicorns crap.
You mean TOS like this?First of all, they don't advertise their platform as a place for "open discussion." They have TOS,
Where does it say they have control over the content of your tweets?Any use or reliance on any Content or materials posted via the Services or obtained by you through the Services is at your own risk. We do not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content or communications posted via the Services or endorse any opinions expressed via the Services. You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive. All Content is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content.
and they can enforce them as they see fit. And when you have 100s of millions of users, billions of tweets, that's necessarily going to involve many judgment calls and whoever does it WILL get it wrong, a lot.
Point is all platforms/businesses/private entities, since the dawn of time, including your kitchen, have rules that everyone must follow or else they get booted. If I advertise my kitchen as a debate forum, and you come in and call my wife a C-word, you'll be booted. Or maybe you're just a contentious troll who won't let anyone else speak and attacks everyone who disagrees with you. I can boot you for that. Etc........
Twitter has no obligation to host ANYONE.
Ignored due to the source. Try harder to engage in something more meaningful and thoughtful, if you can.
You know just as well as I, that they will make any excuse necessary to justify their opposition to freedom of speech.Wow, just wow... Pure projection, Callen.
Freedom of speech with the exception of violent or illegal activity is to be applauded by anyone who values freedom Those who pretend it isn't necessary are illiberals.
I'm not going to call him inept.. But lately he has turned into an attention whore.. He swings which every way the wind blows..Musk isn't a genius; he just clumsily plays one on TV (and Twitter).
Any real investigation of his background quickly reveals him to be hopelessly inept at just about anything and everything save marketing and promotion; if there is one thing he might be called brilliant at, it's this (also taking credit for technologies and innovations he had nothing to do with save tossing lots of money at it). His one technical contribution to Paypal for example, was terrible quality spaghetti code he spent restlessly nights working on that had to be tossed out wholesale by actually competent programmers (which he had a subsequent hissy fit about).
Remember, this is the guy that Peter Thiel got ejected from Paypal for being insufferably toxic, total dead weight and actively counterproductive; Musk got his first big score with Paypal that made all the others possible between the equity purchased with his daddy's blood emerald money and the actual talent and capabilities of Thiel and his team.
I said nothing about people on this forum in that post......why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent what people post?That's quite the strawman argument, Callen.
Who do you know from this forum on the right that believes calls for violence and illegal activities is free speech?
Many people have been banned for a shitload less on Twitter than for the above. TOS bans seems to be whatever some crazy illiberal person left in charge says it is...
Helluva statement to make after this week's social justice rampage in Brooklyn.
I said nothing about people on this forum in that post......why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent what people post?
K....I never said you did say that. I said it so stop pretending there was something personally insulting in my opinion. There wasn't.
As for what "other people" post, you go ahead and prove that I have misrepresented their words, or concede your dumb stupid argument.
You know just as well as I, that they will make any excuse necessary to justify their opposition to freedom of speech.
.
You haven't paid Twitter any money but you appear to feel entitled to use their billion dollar computer network with no rules.HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
So also... in your headm "free accounts" = "freeloaders"?
What is it you think a monetized account is, exactly?
If Twitter was moderated just as DP is, that would be a 10 fold improvement over how Twitter is currently being moderated.Do you oppose "freedom of speech" on DP? Why can I not say some of the things I really want to say without being banned? CENSORSHIP!
Maybe when he comes down from his drug-induced high and his lawyers have a chat he will understand the responsibility that comes with owning a powerful communications tool like Twitter......that is if he ever comes down from his high.
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?