FB and Twitter got dumped

Status
Not open for further replies.

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
That just made my night!
Because you're pro-censorship and support "cancel culture" when it agrees with your viewpoint? Wow. Just wow.

_________________

"The company says that two-thirds of its customers asked for the sites to be blocked."

Are they not smart enough to refrain from clicking on the link? Or were they trying to get the provider to ban the sites in protest? The latter would be the ultimate in hypocrisy and another example of a group acting just like the one they claim to oppose... which is exactly what we saw last week in the Capitol.
 

feddoc

Long Time Member
Messages
4,730
The ISP, Your T1 WIFI, confirmed that it will block Facebook and Twitter from its WIFI service for some customers starting this Wednesday, according to a report by KREM 2.
 

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
Because you're pro-censorship and support "cancel culture" when it agrees with your viewpoint? Wow. Just wow.

_________________

"The company says that two-thirds of its customers asked for the sites to be blocked."

Are they not smart enough to refrain from clicking on the link? Or were they trying to get the provider to ban the sites in protest? The latter would be the ultimate in hypocrisy and another example of a group acting just like the one they claim to oppose... which is exactly what we saw last week in the Capitol.
Pot, meet kettle
 

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
Your the guy that’s all for big tech colluding to drop parlor blatantly ignoring anti trust laws right? May e he’s just happy about that provider exercising its rights as a private company.

yeah, I know what it means. Your the kettle, or maybe the pot. Same diff
 

eelgrass

Long Time Member
Messages
25,808
A new law is due to be passed in Poland that would fine Big Tech firms a staggering $2.2 million every time they unconstitutionally censor lawful free speech online.

While liberal governments in western nations seek to fine social media giants Facebook and Twitter for failing to remove so-called “hate speech,” Poland is taking a refreshingly different approach.

“Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law,” Poland In reports.

Big Tech Faces $2.2 Million Fine Every Time They Censor Free Speech in Poland | Neon Nettle
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Your the guy that’s all for big tech colluding to drop parlor blatantly ignoring anti trust laws right? May e he’s just happy about that provider exercising its rights as a private company.

yeah, I know what it means. Your the kettle, or maybe the pot. Same diff
Yep, you know not what you speak of. I've not given my opinion here on this subject so you have no idea what I think about it.

If, as you suggest, he's just happy they're exercising their rights as a private company after criticizing it when it was Big Tech then that would be the example of hypocrisy I was referring to. You've inadvertently made my point. Thank you.
 

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
Poland knows first hand what it is like to live under socialist rule where censorship is practiced by the government. Maybe we should learn from them.
RELH
Had an older polish guy that worked for me for years. This was 10 years ago and he would talk about how scared he was with what was going on in this country. That guy lived through it and the writing on the wall was easy for him to see. It truly terrified him. If he’s still around I can only imagine what he’s thinking seeing it all happen here like it did to his country
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
165
Its apparent you don't know what that means.

You heard no indignation from me either way, just pointing out the clear hypocrisy when somebody who criticized it one way celebrates it another.
The one big difference I see is that their customers asked for the sites to be blocked and that if you are a customer and want those sites you can be added on the allowed list.

Still think it is a slippery slope.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
Could we have a mass exodus from the US to Poland? It’s been feeling a little crowded around here!
I’ve got to stay here in the US though, otherwise it sounds like I’d have to let anti hunter, anti gun and peta members post whatever they want on our hunting site here. I doubt you guys want to wade through all that crap.
I’ll hang back where I have the right to delete that stuff so you guys don’t have to hear it. :)
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Because you're pro-censorship and support "cancel culture" when it agrees with your viewpoint? Wow. Just wow.

_________________

"The company says that two-thirds of its customers asked for the sites to be blocked."

Are they not smart enough to refrain from clicking on the link? Or were they trying to get the provider to ban the sites in protest? The latter would be the ultimate in hypocrisy and another example of a group acting just like the one they claim to oppose... which is exactly what we saw last week in the Capitol.


When 67% of your customers ask for something, its generally a good idea to grant it .

Besides, as you've pointed out, they arent blocked, FB and Twitter are more than welcome to build an ISP and deliver service to that area.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
When 67% of your customers ask for something, its generally a good idea to grant it .
Are there any other values that you hold dear that you're willing to give up by majority vote? Because if I'm not mistaken you were against censorship by FB, Twitter, etc...

____________

I personally couldn't care less about any of this. I've never had a social media account. I've been to Northern Idaho and know that is someplace that I never want to live. I don't care if a private company turns off certain websites; if the locals don't like it then can switch providers. It's free market, just like on the other side of the spectrum.

But I'm amazed at the people who were so ticked at private company censorship that now support it just because it aligns with their politics.

I thank God we have a Constitution or we'd truly have nothing left by now.

Besides, as you've pointed out, they arent blocked, FB and Twitter are more than welcome to build an ISP and deliver service to that area.

Unlike your other argument about content, this could be about infrastructure and if this is a public utility (which it could possibly be, I just don't care to find out) then there would be censorship concerns at play. Public utilities are granted special exceptions but then have special rules. That's why you only have Dominion Energy running gas in your neighborhood and not four different gas lines. If it's a wireless system that's self-funded then they can do what they want and the customers will decide if they like it.
 
Last edited:

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Are there any other values that you hold dear that you're willing to give up by majority vote? Because if I'm not mistaken you were against censorship by FB, Twitter, etc...

____________

I personally couldn't care less about any of this. I've never had a social media account. I've been to Northern Idaho and know that is someplace that I never want to live. I don't care if a private company turns off certain websites; if the locals don't like it then can switch providers. It's free market, just like on the other side of the spectrum.

But I'm amazed at the people who were so ticked at private company censorship that now support it just because it aligns with their politics.

I thank God we have a Constitution or we'd truly have nothing left by now.



Unlike your other argument about content, this could be about infrastructure and if this is a public utility (which it could possibly be, I just don't care to find out) then there would be censorship concerns at play. Public utilities are granted special exceptions but then have special rules. That's why you only have Dominion Energy running gas in your neighborhood and not four different gas lines. If it's a wireless system that's self-funded then they can do what they want and the customers will decide if they like it.

Customers ask stores to stock or unstock products continuously. There is no difference.

But you cant have it both ways. Apple and google play shutting down an App, isn't censorship because they are a private company, but a private company shutting down FB/Twitter is censorship? Apps being shut down by private companies. Again there is no difference.


Lastly. Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss government protecting SOME forms of speach(230) while not protecting others(every other form of media)?

And. Seeing what happened now, are you SERIOUSLY going to try and say these tech companies arent now editorializing? Really?

You have Google, Amazon, Apple, demanding that Parler be responsible for all content on their app.

So Google and the others hide behind 230 saying they need it because they cant be responsible for all the content on their "platforms", then turning around and censoring apps claiming they must be.?

If Parler must be and isn't extended 230 protection, then neither should Twitter.

And again I have neither.

But i went to history class. I learned about Standard Oil. This is exactly the same. Including using government handouts/protections to monopolize industry
 

larrbo

Very Active Member
Messages
1,866
I think this whole situation with Big Tech is larger than what has happened this week. Other larger companies are getting involved in canceling those they disapprove off. One of those is Mastercard that stated they won't contribute to any candidate that supported questioning the election results. Will Mastercard begin to disallow charges to companies or candidates they disagree with?
Along with Tech and big business they have the power to shutdown anyone they want. Next on their list of cancelations could be the NRA, RNC, and company thatsells ammo or firearms or even sites like Monster Mulies. From past experience i don't expect these people to back off.
 
Last edited:

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
Will Mastercard begin to disallow charges to companies or candidates they disagree with?
yes. already talking about certain people that wont be able to fly due to political affiliation. Forbes magazine put out a statement that any company who hires any former member of the Trump administration (were talking thousands of people) they will consider there entire company liars? so defamed and off the Forbes 500 list? citi bank lining up. your free as a bird you just cant bank any where, no problem.

but dont worry. Grizzly says this is all constitutional. nothing to see here
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
All this "private Company" can do what they want is BS. What if said private company decided to block/censor all Black peoples voices ? Its their company so.........
What about me blocking anti-hunter, anti-gun and PETA posts? Should I not have the right to do that? What would this site be like if I were forced by the government to allow them to post whatever they want here?
Or what if I didn't want religious battles taking place on this website, but the government forced me to allow it? What kind of website would this be if I was forced to allow anything and everything to be posted here?
I understand what you're saying, but on the flip side, private business should be allowed to run their business as they see fit. If I don't want my site filled with a bunch of peta messages telling me and others what horrible rotten people we are, maybe even calling for our death (as in the Parler deal), I shouldn't be forced to by our government.
The internet would be an utter mess if websites had to allow every message by every visitor.
 

cosmic_cowboy

Active Member
Messages
926
What about me blocking anti-hunter, anti-gun and PETA posts? Should I not have the right to do that? What would this site be like if I were forced by the government to allow them to post whatever they want here?
Or what if I didn't want religious battles taking place on this website, but the government forced me to allow it? What kind of website would this be if I was forced to allow anything and everything to be posted here?
I understand what you're saying, but on the flip side, private business should be allowed to run their business as they see fit. If I don't want my site filled with a bunch of peta messages telling me and others what horrible rotten people we are, maybe even calling for our death (as in the Parler deal), I shouldn't be forced to by our government.
The internet would be an utter mess if websites had to allow every message by every visitor.
I agree Brian, but who gets to decide what is allowed and what is not ? This always has and always will lead to propaganda, by the ones in control. I don't have the answer but something has to change. They say if you don't like it start your own site... how did that work out for Parler ?
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
What about me blocking anti-hunter, anti-gun and PETA posts? Should I not have the right to do that? What would this site be like if I were forced by the government to allow them to post whatever they want here?
Or what if I didn't want religious battles taking place on this website, but the government forced me to allow it? What kind of website would this be if I was forced to allow anything and everything to be posted here?
I understand what you're saying, but on the flip side, private business should be allowed to run their business as they see fit. If I don't want my site filled with a bunch of peta messages telling me and others what horrible rotten people we are, maybe even calling for our death (as in the Parler deal), I shouldn't be forced to by our government.
The internet would be an utter mess if websites had to allow every message by every visitor.


You should be able to do whatever you want IF your a private business.

Without 230 you would have to protect yourself against liability. Meaning your costs would go up. Youd have to employ lawyers, moderators. Meaning youd either have to charge a fee to us, or bump rates on sponsors or both.

Would you tube be able to be able to be as big as they are? That would be determined by the same market forces every other business in America faces.

Most likely it would lead to several smaller sites competing for content and eyeballs. Same as HBO and NBC have to do.

Its not tge US governments job, or responsibility to enter into a marketplace and pick winners and losers. The newspaper industry has been bled to death by competitors doing the EXACT same thing they do, but the papers dont have immunity meaning their costs are higher putting them at a competitive disadvantage via gov.


CNN got sued for millions for pitting out the EXACT same info as hundreds of you tube channels when they slandered Nick Sandman. Why? Why should online "media" nit be held to the same standards?

Without 230, Twiiter is the same as tge letters to the editor page. With it they are a billion dollar company. Doing the exact same thing.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
I agree Brian, but who gets to decide what is allowed and what is not ? This always has and always will lead to propaganda, by the ones in control. I don't have the answer but something has to change. They say if you don't like it start your own site... how did that work out for Parler ?
Something may need to be done, but it needs to be well thought out. Same with the Section 230......maybe something needs to be done, but it needs to be a smart something that takes into account many viewpoints and impacts on all businesses, not just a couple big techs. Not an easy issue to address.
As for Parler, I don't know all the details, but if they were allowing death threats and such, then they should expect problems with those helping them do business like Apple and Amazon. Not everyone, in fact very few, want to be associated with that stuff. I'm not sure what my contracts with my hosting company says, but I would imagine in the fine print they have the right to stop doing business with me if my sites contain certain bad material like that.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
All this "private Company" can do what they want is BS. What if said private company decided to block/censor all Black peoples voices ? Its their company so.........
You're missing a key part of the discussion... Federal Anti-discrimination laws. As I pointed out in the other thread, there are Protected Classes under federal law. Political affiliation isn't one, but race is.
 

cosmic_cowboy

Active Member
Messages
926
You're missing a key part of the discussion... Federal Anti-discrimination laws. As I pointed out in the other thread, there are Protected Classes under federal law. Political affiliation isn't one, but race is.
Define "Discrimination" It doesn't apply only to race. And what is a "Protected Class" and who decides this ? The Government does ! But we can't involve the government, Grizz you are talking in circles.
 

NeMont

Long Time Member
Messages
12,561
There are limits on free speech.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater"
is a popular analogy for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]

The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre.[2] The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

I think Lin Wood tweeting that VP Pence needs to face the firing squad isn't protected speech given the context and venue.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Customers ask stores to stock or unstock products continuously. There is no difference.

But you cant have it both ways. Apple and google play shutting down an App, isn't censorship because they are a private company, but a private company shutting down FB/Twitter is censorship? Apps being shut down by private companies. Again there is no difference.


Lastly. Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss government protecting SOME forms of speach(230) while not protecting others(every other form of media)?

And. Seeing what happened now, are you SERIOUSLY going to try and say these tech companies arent now editorializing? Really?

You have Google, Amazon, Apple, demanding that Parler be responsible for all content on their app.

So Google and the others hide behind 230 saying they need it because they cant be responsible for all the content on their "platforms", then turning around and censoring apps claiming they must be.?

If Parler must be and isn't extended 230 protection, then neither should Twitter.

And again I have neither.

But i went to history class. I learned about Standard Oil. This is exactly the same. Including using government handouts/protections to monopolize industry
And there you go again putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm not trying to have it both ways, I clearly said in the very post you quoted, "I don't care if a private company turns off certain websites; if the locals don't like it then can switch providers. It's free market, just like on the other side of the spectrum."

It's not my position that is against censorship of one type of speech while celebrating the other; I've made it clear that private companies can do what they want... and that there is a possible exception in the case of public utilities.

As to your question, "Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss government protecting SOME forms of speach(230) while not protecting others(every other form of media)?"

If you think ALL speech is equally protected or that NO speech is equally protected, you're wrong. The Supreme Court has been very clear that there are limitations on free speech and some of more protected than others.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Define "Discrimination" It doesn't apply only to race. And what is a "Protected Class" and who decides this ? The Government does ! But we can't involve the government, Grizz you are talking in circles.
Google is your friend... https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/protected-classes

So now your position is that because there are discrimination laws, the government should also control the speech and operating agreements of a private company? Wow.

Look at where your path has now taken you.
 

cosmic_cowboy

Active Member
Messages
926
Google is your friend... https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/protected-classes

So now your position is that because there are discrimination laws, the government should also control the speech and operating agreements of a private company? Wow.

Look at where your path has now taken you.
Not what I said at all. I said the government made changes to discrimination laws when they were called for and needed. And some kind of change is called for and needed now. And most people agree with this, the question is what to do.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
And there you go again putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm not trying to have it both ways, I clearly said in the very post you quoted, "I don't care if a private company turns off certain websites; if the locals don't like it then can switch providers. It's free market, just like on the other side of the spectrum."

It's not my position that is against censorship of one type of speech while celebrating the other; I've made it clear that private companies can do what they want... and that there is a possible exception in the case of public utilities.

As to your question, "Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss government protecting SOME forms of speach(230) while not protecting others(every other form of media)?"

If you think ALL speech is equally protected or that NO speech is equally protected, you're wrong. The Supreme Court has been very clear that there are limitations on free speech and some of more protected than others.


No, again you change the argument. Customers can switch. Or they can pressure the business. It doesnt mean they are "too stupid", it means they simply want/dont want what they pay for. And like every buisness, you dont write off 67% of your business.

Then you spin it again. I specifically said where in the constitution does it say that certain media deserves protection vs other media?

PROTECTION.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
I specifically said where in the constitution does it say that certain media deserves protection vs other media?

PROTECTION.
Media is speech. Just like Citizens United found, money is speech too.

As to your "protection" argument... the FCC regulates television content (which is why hardcore adult content can't be found on The Discovery Channel at 2 in the afternoon) but the government decided they largely weren't going to try and regulate internet content (obviously with certain exceptions like child assault). Part of that was 230 where they said an internet provider couldn't be held liable for content posted by another person and couldn't be reasonably expected to fully moderate all content at all times. This is where the "made aware" discussion comes in from @Founder.

I, for one, am not looking to give the government more control of internet content. I'm amazed at those looking to force/prohibit speech of private companies just because somebody took a different political slant than they may like.

All that would happen is every 4 years a different website would get shut down and then started back up again depending on the people in charge.
 
Last edited:

excavator

Active Member
Messages
318
All this "private Company" can do what they want is BS. What if said private company decided to block/censor all Black peoples voices ? Its their company so.........

I couldn't agree more.

If your stance is that a private company can do whatever they want, you need to step back and think about where we are at this moment in history.

A certain ideology now controls all branches of government, corporate America, and Big Tech. In this country’s history, have we ever seen this level of power all aligned under one ideology?? In case you haven't noticed, it is no longer OK to have a difference in opinion. Rather, they wish to force you in to conforming to their view point. And they now have all the power to do it.

We have already seen the requirement to conform to a certain view point imposed on nearly all leaders of public schools, professional athletes, universities, corporate mangers/leaders, etc....Now that this certain ideology has unchecked power, the requirement to conform will be pushed further down the social hierarchy. The only question is, how far will it go?

Corporate America now controls almost everything, and a lot of people seem to think it is OK to discriminate based on ideology. If that's OK and lawful, there's not much to limit what a certain ideology could legally impose on the rest of us (the specific laws may vary by state).

Maybe we are taking it for granted that those of us with a different viewpoint (and especially those that choose to express it) can freely purchase goods and services in a society that is primarily controlled by large corporations and a government with viewpoints different than our own. How far could they go in refusing service to those of us that view the world through a different lens?

Some will say that corporations won't ever refuse to do businesse with people that view the world differently than they do because it will hurt them too much financially. There is no doubt that this will help in limiting it, but it won't eliminate it. All you need to do is take a look at the financial hits the NBA and the NFL are taking. They are taking huge financial hits, but they show no signs of slowing down in silencing those with a different viewpoint.

Again, because all the power (corporate America, Big Tech, government) is now concentrated under one particular belief system, there are some things to consider. I have no idea what the correct answer is, but if I were you, I might think about this belief that "a private company" can refuse service to whoever they want. Depending on the state you live in, things could be taken to a more extreme level than you ever thought possible.
 

eelgrass

Long Time Member
Messages
25,808
fighting fascism.png
 

wetmule

Very Active Member
Messages
1,791
Musical chairs is being played on the biggest stage.
The chairs are gonna run out for everyone that doesn't share the "correct" ideology or conform
 

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
Define "Discrimination" It doesn't apply only to race. And what is a "Protected Class" and who decides this ? The Government does ! But we can't involve the government, Grizz you are talking in circle
Pelosi on twitter dismissing 70 million plus people due to there "whitness" no that's not discrimination based on skin color.

"all animals are equal, some animals are just more equal then others"
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Media is speech. Just like Citizens United found, money is speech too.

As to your "protection" argument... the FCC regulates television content (which is why hardcore adult content can't be found on The Discovery Channel at 2 in the afternoon) but the government decided they largely weren't going to try and regulate internet content (obviously with certain exceptions like child assault). Part of that was 230 where they said an internet provider couldn't be held liable for content posted by another person and couldn't be reasonably expected to fully moderate all content at all times. This is where the "made aware" discussion comes in from @Founder.

I, for one, am not looking to give the government more control of internet content. I'm amazed at those looking to force/prohibit speech of private companies just because somebody took a different political slant than they may like.

All that would happen is every 4 years a different website would get shut down and then started back up again depending on the people in charge.


Media is Speech.

Citizens united was about political contributions. As a side note, how much of a political contribution is it when you silence the leader of the opposition party worth? $100 million? More?


You keep trying to say censor, or shut down. Pulling 230 does neither. The economic reality of liability protection might let them decide to shut down or shrink their scope. Every business does evaluations of cost of business vs rewards. Twitter might have to charge a subscription or charge more for their mined data to cover the costs of business. Whether it shuts down or not is of no concern to the government.

Censorship would be if the government only pulled 230 for Twitter, but not its competitors.

But for the 3rd time. Even under 230 as of today. Are you really trying to imply FB and Twitter arent editorializing right now? Forget politics. How about with covid? Or Biden investigation? Or whatever subject you can name. They are violating 230, right now.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Plus. Lets not forget, FB, and Twitter arent even in the speech business. Not even in the media business.

Twitter, FB, and others, are data miners. They sell your data.

So the government protects FB, so they can sell your data.

Speech on FB pays zero. Data does. Its not illegal, you sign up for it. 230 is a platform protection law. Its not a data collection law
 

larrbo

Very Active Member
Messages
1,866
I guess Tim Cook from Apple has evolved on riots and violence. Last summer he supported the protesters and rioters that were burning our cities down. Today he came out and denounced the protesters that breached the capital last week and said everyone involved should be prosecuted. Glad to see he came around.
 

BabyYoda

Active Member
Messages
131
Is MM a subject specific website?
I’m all for you blocking ALL political and anti hunting posts. Even cross bow topics.

Are FB and Twitter, etc. subject specific platforms?

Some of you are comparing apples to oranges with your examples.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,051
I couldn't agree more.

If your stance is that a private company can do whatever they want, you need to step back and think about where we are at this moment in history.

A certain ideology now controls all branches of government, corporate America, and Big Tech. In this country’s history, have we ever seen this level of power all aligned under one ideology?? In case you haven't noticed, it is no longer OK to have a difference in opinion. Rather, they wish to force you in to conforming to their view point. And they now have all the power to do it.

We have already seen the requirement to conform to a certain view point imposed on nearly all leaders of public schools, professional athletes, universities, corporate mangers/leaders, etc....Now that this certain ideology has unchecked power, the requirement to conform will be pushed further down the social hierarchy. The only question is, how far will it go?

Corporate America now controls almost everything, and a lot of people seem to think it is OK to discriminate based on ideology. If that's OK and lawful, there's not much to limit what a certain ideology could legally impose on the rest of us (the specific laws may vary by state).

Maybe we are taking it for granted that those of us with a different viewpoint (and especially those that choose to express it) can freely purchase goods and services in a society that is primarily controlled by large corporations and a government with viewpoints different than our own. How far could they go in refusing service to those of us that view the world through a different lens?

Some will say that corporations won't ever refuse to do businesse with people that view the world differently than they do because it will hurt them too much financially. There is no doubt that this will help in limiting it, but it won't eliminate it. All you need to do is take a look at the financial hits the NBA and the NFL are taking. They are taking huge financial hits, but they show no signs of slowing down in silencing those with a different viewpoint.

Again, because all the power (corporate America, Big Tech, government) is now concentrated under one particular belief system, there are some things to consider. I have no idea what the correct answer is, but if I were you, I might think about this belief that "a private company" can refuse service to whoever they want. Depending on the state you live in, things could be taken to a more extreme level than you ever thought possible.
I sure pity the position those social media sites are in. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I know this first hand here on this site. In trying to keep this thread from going to a political battle, I deleted a few earlier posts, but allowed the thread to continue. It gradually went beyond one of the posts that I removed earlier, and I understand the complaint of the member who’s post was removed.

It’s impossible for me to know when and where to draw the line without upsetting someone. I was talking to a friend today and “the line” came up. I explained that I can’t define any “line” so that everyone can abide by my requests perfectly.

For some stuff, it’s easy to call as to whether it should be allowed or removed. But for other stuff it’s impossible. So, I understand how tough it is for big companies to make a call on what to do with some of the political and free speech stuff.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Im only using Founder because hes the only guy in this thread with a forum. I do not want harm to come to him.


Having said that.

When i ask, why should Founder(FB, TWITTER, ETC) why does he deserve special consideration of government, the answer is without it hed be sued out of existence.

Maybe, maybe not.

But why does he deserve protection I dont get? My dentist doesnt get? My Dr doesnt get? My favorite restaraunt doesnt get? Etc, etc, etc?

Grizzly tries to spin this into free speech and private business. Its not.

230 gives a select few immunity from liability. That's what it does. Makes it so when I call Bess a turd herder, Bess cant sue Founder for hurt feelings.

However, Bess can be sued by every homeowner he works for. Everyone on the road who wrecks his business vehicle, etc. He also has to have proof of liability protection(insurance), and depending on the job may have to post bonds.

Founder has none if that. Why? Why is founders internet business of more value to society than a plumber?

Founder uses his 230 protection pretty damn fairly I think. Hes dumped some posts, I Wasnt torn up. Hes warned me, I knew I was on the edge. But hes pretty damn fair.

Jack Dorsey uses his special government protection to attack his enemies, settle scores, and create monopolies.

Or, to look at it another way, Jack Dorsey takes a government subsidy provided by the tax payers to attack and destroy taxpayers who gave him a subsidy.

Bet your azz, Jack wouldn't be nearly so brazen, if like every other profession in the country, Jack was liable for his actions.

230 is the ultimate in crony capitalism.
 

Homer

Long Time Member
Messages
8,628
If any of us here want to stay relevant at all in the right leaning political world we better get our wallets out and support the politicians we like..........corporations, under extreme pressure from the other side are cutting them off........

Welcome to the USSR.....
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
If any of us here want to stay relevant at all in the right leaning political world we better get our wallets out and support the politicians we like..........corporations, under extreme pressure from the other side are cutting them off........

Welcome to the USSR.....


You need to support the Bongino, Shapiro, Levins, Becks of the world. They have a head start, but building an entire infrastructure takes money. Not sure who conservatives will use for payment processing, but I am sure Master card will bail soon.

It truly sucks that R and libertarians have to go a route they are genetically opposed to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Top Bottom