Tech censor

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
I did because @Founder asked you to not pick fights in post #90 and the purpose of my question wasn't which political ideology you were speaking of, it was directed towards private vs government.

Regardless of which side you're referring to, it was a superfluous distinction that didn't need to be made and counteracted the purpose of my question.
What an a good comrade
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
What an a good comrade
Back to finger pointing and unhelpful name calling... so typical of somebody when they've lost an argument.

Some of us still respect private property rights and the ability of a business owner to operate as they see fit. We try and honor those requests if we choose to utilize that business. If we don't like it, we go somewhere else.

Speaking of which, has anybody cancelled their Amazon subscription yet?
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Im also curious, Grizzly.

If truckers, farmers, ranchers all colluded together and refused to service NY, do you think that would be considered private business or would the same liberals want government involved?

As a public land guy, you know the history of TR. He made public land, via government in order to stop private takeover.

Government uses eminent domain to stop private buisness, from pushing land values.

TR created a national forest in order to allow the LA aquaduct to be built and not have to deal with private businesses.

I have to a license from the state to perform my job.

Government is involved in every industry. Right or wrong the people have some rights in commerce.

The media has constitutionally protected rights but still are subject.

My guns are protected, yet still subject.
 

roadrunner

Very Active Member
Messages
2,180
The tech companies are focusing on "conservatives". Not voting democrat means absolutely nothing as to the narrative of racism. Several of my "minority" friends are very conservative.

Nothing wrong with being conservatively minded. Means you're not a blatant risk taker and ease into things. It means you test the waters more before jumping in.

Being liberally minded isn't a bad thing either. It means you recognize change can be a good thing and that you're willing to take a few more risks by assuming the water is either deep, safe, or warm enough before you jump in.

Extreme wacko conservativsm and liberalism are the dangerous sectors...
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Im also curious, Grizzly.

If truckers, farmers, ranchers all colluded together and refused to service NY, do you think that would be considered private business or would the same liberals want government involved?
see: United States Constitution; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ... The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to the Congress by the founders.

Last I checked Google, FB are among the richest companies in the US.
Soooooo, congress has the power to regulate them, as you so nicely pointed out.

I just signed waivers for my kids sports. Those leagues arent out of business because they dont have government protection.

Founder wouldn't either. He could require a waiver from me in order to join.

230 is the ultimate in protectionism. Which no one cared much about until FB and Twitter decided to flex their muscle.

Its interesting to watch countries that know what suppressed speech leads to stopping the suppression, ie POLAND, while the supposed free speech country follows China.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; ... The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to the Congress by the founders.

Last I checked Google, FB are among the richest companies in the US.
Soooooo, congress has the power to regulate them, as you so nicely pointed out.

I just signed waivers for my kids sports. Those leagues arent out of business because they dont have government protection.

Founder wouldn't either. He could require a waiver from me in order to join.

230 is the ultimate in protectionism. Which no one cared much about until FB and Twitter decided to flex their muscle.

Its interesting to watch countries that know what suppressed speech leads to stopping the suppression, ie POLAND, while the supposed free speech country follows China.
And if you want to go make the claim that The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 is violated by the banning of an individual on Twitter, I'd love to see it 😂

Need we revert back to the First Amendment? A president can't require his speech be heard any more than he can require another's speech be banned.

Nobody's stopping you from saying what you want, you're just demanding you get to say it where you want. Your side is trying to force your views on a business while often lamenting when other views are forced on another business.

And all because Parler will be shut down for "a few days."

How you guys are tied up in knots promoting the government REQUIRING certain speech of a business is asinine.

If the government can require it, they can block it.

Leave the government out of it.
 

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
Back to finger pointing and unhelpful name calling... so typical of somebody when they've lost an argument.

Some of us still respect private property rights and the ability of a business owner to operate as they see fit. We try and honor those requests if we choose to utilize that business. If we don't like it, we go somewhere else.

Speaking of which, has anybody cancelled their Amazon subscription yet?
Lost an argument? I noticed you didn’t censor the reference to “ any branch of government “ when saying you did so to keep it A political. that’s pretty telling.

Of course I understand with the ( brace yourself bad word coming) left decent cannot be tolerated. So your just doing your part
 
Last edited:

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,012
I had a friend who's dad owned some property that was great for riding motor bikes and most kids rode bikes on his property. This guy allowed all the kids of the community to ride bikes on his property and never had an issue. One day he told the kids they needed to just ride bikes on one section of his property.
A lawyer who's kid would ride his bike on this man's property came over to this man who owned the property and told him he needed to put up no trespassing signs and not allow any kids to ride bikes on his property anymore. The man that owned the property asked how come is it a problem now the kids including yours have been riding on my property for years. The lawyer said because you have now instructed the kids where they can ride that gives you direct knowledge that riding motor bikes on your property and tge kids know now it is private property and all of this makes you directly responsible for anyone actions or accidents that might happen on your property. You could even be held liable for the safety of the kids riding too and from your property.
Grizz
My question. With Twitter, Facebook, IG, YouTube and Google admitting they now know these threats was on there social media sites does that take away the protection of 230?
Did they not just become an editorial site by removing posts and individuals that made certain posts?
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
Again, Twitter, Google and FB are not the only means of communication!! My heck, there are thousands of websites on the internet to voice opinions. I can’t believe that now laws have to be passed to force a website to let you do and say whatever you want. It’s just like on this website, if you want to talk about something not allowed, go somewhere where it is allowed. Simple.
You’re granting those businesses total control over you while at same time complaining that they have control over you.
On a side note, I’d have done what Twitter did long ago if there was some one using my site to enrich themself with money and power while at the same time using my site to try and ruin my business. I’d ban them as well.
Not sure where you guys work, but I’ll bet you wouldn’t tolerate it either. Who would?
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
And if you want to go make the claim that The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 is violated by the banning of an individual on Twitter, I'd love to see it 😂

Need we revert back to the First Amendment? A president can't require his speech be heard any more than he can require another's speech be banned.

Nobody's stopping you from saying what you want, you're just demanding you get to say it where you want. Your side is trying to force your views on a business while often lamenting when other views are forced on another business.

And all because Parler will be shut down for "a few days."

How you guys are tied up in knots promoting the government REQUIRING certain speech of a business is asinine.

If the government can require it, they can block it.

Leave the government out of it.


Ive agreed how many times?

Leave the government out of it. Completely. 230 is government involvement. Your preaching open/free market. I agree. Let Twitter and the NY TIMES compete on a level playing field.

Every business has to take into consideration tge liability cost associated with that business. I carry liability insurance. Its a cost. Your business has to consider liability costs.

I totally agree. Get government protectionism completely out of it.

Big tech can stand on there own two feet.

You are completely correct
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Again, Twitter, Google and FB are not the only means of communication!! My heck, there are thousands of websites on the internet to voice opinions. I can’t believe that now laws have to be passed to force a website to let you do and say whatever you want. It’s just like on this website, if you want to talk about something not allowed, go somewhere where it is allowed. Simple.
You’re granting those businesses total control over you while at same time complaining that they have control over you.
On a side note, I’d have done what Twitter did long ago if there was some one using my site to enrich themself with money and power while at the same time using my site to try and ruin my business. I’d ban them as well.
Not sure where you guys work, but I’ll bet you wouldn’t tolerate it either. Who would?


Got any guides that work in Wyoming in here?

Asking for a friend who heard WYOGA tried to use your site for customers while pushing laws to hurt you


Open question. Is it "fair" that you run a business that had the government remove all liability for it?

Ive heard you say 230 removal would bankrupt you, because youd have to moderate/pay a moderator to control it.

Most big construction companies have OSHA compliance folks. Its a cost of business. Their sole job is to "moderate" the companies exposure to liability with OSHA.

ID love the government to take my liability away. How can I honestly be expected to control all tge variables that make my business liable? Yet I am. I scratch checks quarterly to an insurance company to protect myself from things i cant control.

You and grizzly keep saying get government out of it, while wanted gov protection.
 
Last edited:

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
I had a friend who's dad owned some property that was great for riding motor bikes and most kids rode bikes on his property. This guy allowed all the kids of the community to ride bikes on his property and never had an issue. One day he told the kids they needed to just ride bikes on one section of his property.
A lawyer who's kid would ride his bike on this man's property came over to this man who owned the property and told him he needed to put up no trespassing signs and not allow any kids to ride bikes on his property anymore. The man that owned the property asked how come is it a problem now the kids including yours have been riding on my property for years. The lawyer said because you have now instructed the kids where they can ride that gives you direct knowledge that riding motor bikes on your property and tge kids know now it is private property and all of this makes you directly responsible for anyone actions or accidents that might happen on your property. You could even be held liable for the safety of the kids riding too and from your property.
Grizz
My question. With Twitter, Facebook, IG, YouTube and Google admitting they now know these threats was on there social media sites does that take away the protection of 230?
Did they not just become an editorial site by removing posts and individuals that made certain posts?
There is no all or nothing requirement. In fact, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled speech is not protected if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That is what companies like Twitter would use to support their moderation. They would point to the violent attacks of last week and to why they're banning people now that they didn't ban before. Everything changed.

If we take your two examples, the bike riding and removing Section 230, and apply them to each other, we'd get the following scenario...

Your friend would be forced to allow the kids to ride on his property (like you guys want to force the tech companies to allow speech that is against their rules). And without Section 230, he'd then be liable for what the kids did on the property he was required to let them access.

Just imagine what you're saying... You have to let them in, and then they can sue you once they're there.

It's a ridiculous scenario you're proposing.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
I would also guess that many, many of the people complaining about Google, Apple, FB and Twitter for doing what they’ve done will continue using those services. Instead of trying to force those businesses to do what you want them to, why not just not support them?
If there are 70M people who think these companies are wrong and use other services, those companies wouldn’t be as huge and powerful as they are. Right?
I had a friend who's dad owned some property that was great for riding motor bikes and most kids rode bikes on his property. This guy allowed all the kids of the community to ride bikes on his property and never had an issue. One day he told the kids they needed to just ride bikes on one section of his property.
A lawyer who's kid would ride his bike on this man's property came over to this man who owned the property and told him he needed to put up no trespassing signs and not allow any kids to ride bikes on his property anymore. The man that owned the property asked how come is it a problem now the kids including yours have been riding on my property for years. The lawyer said because you have now instructed the kids where they can ride that gives you direct knowledge that riding motor bikes on your property and tge kids know now it is private property and all of this makes you directly responsible for anyone actions or accidents that might happen on your property. You could even be held liable for the safety of the kids riding too and from your property.
Grizz
My question. With Twitter, Facebook, IG, YouTube and Google admitting they now know these threats was on there social media sites does that take away the protection of 230?
Did they not just become an editorial site by removing posts and individuals that made certain posts?
I would agree with this and over 20 years ago that is how one court case found. Once a site owner is made aware of certain content, THEN, they can be held liable. I think that’s how it should be. My issue with yanking 230 completely, makes me liable for content posted before I’m aware of its existence.
Ive always operated this website on that notion that once I’m made aware of certain content I could be held liable for allowing it on my site......treated like an editor.
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,012
Again, Twitter, Google and FB are not the only means of communication!! My heck, there are thousands of websites on the internet to voice opinions. I can’t believe that now laws have to be passed to force a website to let you do and say whatever you want. It’s just like on this website, if you want to talk about something not allowed, go somewhere where it is allowed. Simple.
You’re granting those businesses total control over you while at same time complaining that they have control over you.
On a side note, I’d have done what Twitter did long ago if there was some one using my site to enrich themself with money and power while at the same time using my site to try and ruin my business. I’d ban them as well.
Not sure where you guys work, but I’ll bet you wouldn’t tolerate it either. Who would?
Founder
I don't like the fact you did away with the political thread and I do not agree with how you make your decision to end a thread. But I try to respect your decision. But you did away with all political (Right or Left)talk at least as much as you can control.
The difference with these other social sites they are not ending a political thread for all they are not even ending threats of violence from all that make them. These social sites are only banning certain groups but allowing others to continue.
I can not understand how you can be fine with that.
Founder you and others keep saying these sites are your private property.
Dud you buy or rent the rites for this site?
If NO you are using public funding.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Every business has to take into consideration tge liability cost associated with that business. I carry liability insurance. Its a cost. Your business has to consider liability costs.
Exactly. And if I deem a customer or employee a liability then I cease to do business with them or fire them. That's exactly what the tech companies did. I'm glad we agree.

It's hard enough for me to keep track of the 70+ people who work for me, I can't imagine the liability I'd be expected to take if I had millions of users and I was responsible for what they said. That's why 230 is so important.

Don't think that would only apply to Twitter, it'd take down Parler too.
 

JPickett

Active Member
Messages
337
On a side note, I’d have done what Twitter did long ago if there was some one using my site to enrich themself with money and power while at the same time using my site to try and ruin my business. I’d ban them as well.
Not sure where you guys work, but I’ll bet you wouldn’t tolerate it either. Who would?
Difference bring your lack of a monopoly on an entire market. Yeah, that’s no big deal
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
Founder
I don't like the fact you did away with the political thread and I do not agree with how you make your decision to end a thread. But I try to respect your decision. But you did away with all political (Right or Left)talk at least as much as you can control.
The difference with these other social sites they are not ending a political thread for all they are not even ending threats of violence from all that make them. These social sites are only banning certain groups but allowing others to continue.
I can not understand how you can be fine with that.
Founder you and others keep saying these sites are your private property.
Dud you buy or rent the rites for this site?
If NO you are using public funding.
What public funding?
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
Exactly. And if I deem a customer or employee a liability then I cease to do business with them or fire them. That's exactly what the tech companies did. I'm glad we agree.

It's hard enough for me to keep track of the 70+ people who work for me, I can't imagine the liability I'd be expected to take if I had millions of users and I was responsible for what they said. That's why 230 is so important.

Don't think that would only apply to Twitter, it'd take down Parler too.
The Parler ceo is very much against doing away with 230.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Exactly. And if I deem a customer or employee a liability then I cease to do business with them or fire them. That's exactly what the tech companies did. I'm glad we agree.

It's hard enough for me to keep track of the 70+ people who work for me, I can't imagine the liability I'd be expected to take if I had millions of users and I was responsible for what they said. That's why 230 is so important.

Don't think that would only apply to Twitter, it'd take down Parler too.


You can be subject to wrongful termination suits, right? There is some recourse.
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,012
There is no all or nothing requirement. In fact, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled speech is not protected if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That is what companies like Twitter would use to support their moderation. They would point to the violent attacks of last week and to why they're banning people now that they didn't ban before. Everything changed.

If we take your two examples, the bike riding and removing Section 230, and apply them to each other, we'd get the following scenario...

Your friend would be forced to allow the kids to ride on his property (like you guys want to force the tech companies to allow speech that is against their rules). And without Section 230, he'd then be liable for what the kids did on the property he was required to let them access.

Just imagine what you're saying... You have to let them in, and then they can sue you once they're there.

It's a ridiculous scenario you're proposing.
Grizz
I am not proposing anything I was really asking a question.
I do not belive these sites should be forced to except anyone. But these sites should not allow one to side say I am going to kill you and not allow the opposing side to say I am going to kill you.
If someone makes a legitimate serious threat then they should turn it over to the police and let them investigate. I would rather have someone make the threat openly so we know of the threat than to have them go to the black web and we have no knowledge of the threat.
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
I heard somebody else say, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. You didn't build that."
Don’t believe everything you read. Al Gore invented the internet. :)
I’m sure in some round about way communication companies may have received tax benefits for expanding the network, but that doesn’t mean the general public owns every website on the internet. If they did, then I’d be fine with yanking 230 protection because then I wouldn’t be sued, the general public (tax payers) would.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
The Parler ceo is very much against doing away with 230.


So?

Grizzly. If you cant imagine liability for millions of users, then I guess you only have as many users as your willing to bevliable for.

Its not the governments job to decide how much you can expand your business.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
You can be subject to wrongful termination suits, right? There is some recourse.
Assuming it wasn't prohibited by whistleblower laws or subject to a protected class, Utah is an at-will employment state and an employee can be fired for pretty much any reason or no reason at all.
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,012
What public funding?
How did the internet get built, who funded the internet getting built?
Who pays for the internet to be expanded?
Someone pays for all of this and I know it is not all payed for by private businesses. It is a legitimate question do you pay for the expansion of the internet do you help pay for them satellites?
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
Grizzly. If you cant imagine liability for millions of users, then I guess you only have as many users as your willing to bevliable for.

Its not the governments job to decide how much you can expand your business.
So your solution is to sue a company for not stopping the speech of another?

And you think that's a conservative principle?

_____________

You do realize that retracting Section 230 results in MORE deleted tweets, not less, right?
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,455
How did the internet get built, who funded the internet getting built?
Who pays for the internet to be expanded?
Someone pays for all of this and I know it is not all payed for by private businesses. It is a legitimate question do you pay for the expansion of the internet do you help pay for them satellites?
Before you keep paddling that canoe, I recommend you Google the quote I posted above, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive." That's the argument you're making.
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,012
How did the internet get built, who funded the internet getting built?
Who pays for the internet to be expanded?
Someone pays for all of this and I know it is not all payed for by private businesses. It is a legitimate question do you pay for the expansion of the internet do you help pay for them satellites?
Sorry already answered. While I was typing
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
So your solution is to sue a company for not stopping the speech of another?

And you think that's a conservative principle?

_____________

You do realize that retracting Section 230 results in MORE deleted tweets, not less, right?


Really? I thought you were a free market guy? You dont think the void would be filled by someone? Alex Jones has a platform, remember?


Nope. I believe, like you, in getting government out of private business. Lawsuits between private individuals is one of the risks companies take.

You wouldn't be for protecting Airlines from lawsuits would you? How are they to be able to control wind shifts, or birds? All that liability will only lead to fewer planes right?
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
How did the internet get built, who funded the internet getting built?
Who pays for the internet to be expanded?
Someone pays for all of this and I know it is not all payed for by private businesses. It is a legitimate question do you pay for the expansion of the internet do you help pay for them satellites?
The internet has always worked over telephone land lines and cellular communication equipment. Simple answer, phone/communication companies built it and still build it. Think Verizon, Comcast, etc.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
The internet has always worked over telephone land lines and cellular communication equipment. Simple answer, phone/communication companies built it and still build it. Think Verizon, Comcast, etc.
Eminant domain. The government, aka me, pays for it. Without it, there would be no lines.

The libs agree on this point. They think internet should be a public utility. That's how they want to get internet "equality"
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
Businesses should also be able to allow or disallow whatever political views they want. I do on this site. I wouldn’t allow a bunch of anti hunters, peta or anti gun folks to come on here and fill the forums with all their political crap. I would delete it because I don’t want it.

Twitter, FB, Google and other are publicly held companies who have to answer to investors with a total range of political beliefs. They are made up of board members and employees who have different political views. Of course the CEO’s have a lot of say in things, but I don’t believe they’re all liberal loving biased beasts trying to destroy one political party.
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,012
Businesses should also be able to allow or disallow whatever political views they want. I do on this site. I wouldn’t allow a bunch of anti hunters, peta or anti gun folks to come on here and fill the forums with all their political crap. I would delete it because I don’t want it.

Twitter, FB, Google and other are publicly held companies who have to answer to investors with a total range of political beliefs. They are made up of board members and employees who have different political views. Of course the CEO’s have a lot of say in things, but I don’t believe they’re all liberal loving biased beasts trying to destroy one political party.
Sure seems like they are!
Looking through rose color glasses all you see is roses and cream puffs.
 

roadrunner

Very Active Member
Messages
2,180
Again, Twitter, Google and FB are not the only means of communication!! My heck, there are thousands of websites on the internet to voice opinions. I can’t believe that now laws have to be passed to force a website to let you do and say whatever you want. It’s just like on this website, if you want to talk about something not allowed, go somewhere where it is allowed. Simple.
You’re granting those businesses total control over you while at same time complaining that they have control over you.
On a side note, I’d have done what Twitter did long ago if there was some one using my site to enrich themself with money and power while at the same time using my site to try and ruin my business. I’d ban them as well.
Not sure where you guys work, but I’ll bet you wouldn’t tolerate it either. Who would?

It's the double standard that is the problem. Some politicians use these very SM platforms to advance and agenda an are given a free pass while others aren't. Especially when the agenda is a direct attack on the Constitution...
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
Twitter is taking the hit in its stock price. I think pressure like that does help to balance fairness.
 

NeMont

Long Time Member
Messages
12,561
It’s astonishing how many people don’t understand what’s at stake or who’s really in control here. I’m sure they’ll all agree with Twitter, Facebook, Google and our new regime when they tell us in the next two years that an election will just be too dangerous to take place.

any one way to bet?
How much do you want to bet? I am willing to go on what ever amount you want put up. The bet is whether Biden/Big tech cancel the 2022 midterm election? I say we will have an election and it will not be deemed "too dangerous to take place". How much?
 

larrbo

Very Active Member
Messages
1,866
Looks like our political leaders are doing more to consolidate their power than to serve we the people.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Twitter is taking the hit in its stock price. I think pressure like that does help to balance fairness.


I hope you have your ISP situation squared away. I obviously like your site, but you are a trophy hunting, hunting forum owner. I hope it doesnt come fir you, but we both know better
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
I hope you have your ISP situation squared away. I obviously like your site, but you are a trophy hunting, hunting forum owner. I hope it doesnt come fir you, but we both know better
:rolleyes: I'm not worried at all. Not even a little. I know you want me to be and you're working hard to convince me to be, but I'm not.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
:rolleyes: I'm not worried at all. Not even a little. I know you want me to be and you're working hard to convince me to be, but I'm not.


No. Seriously. We dont always agree, but upuve always been fair even when we dont.

I like your site. I like the community of guys in here. We all talk a lot of junk, but ID share a beer and a fire with 99% of them

Im being straight. I hope they dont overreach.

I listened to Bongino this morning because I was curious.

Parler I think will be back. Im not planning on joining.

But the behind scenes stuff I think is the most worrying. The cancel culture crap that comes for buisnesses, the employees, then any business that did business with them. Then credit processors, banks, etc

That crap is scary. And i cant see it stopping after the weekend purge.

But I am being straight. I like this site. I dont want anything to happen to it.
 

hornkiller

Long Time Member
Messages
3,533
Back to finger pointing and unhelpful name calling... so typical of somebody when they've lost an argument.

Some of us still respect private property rights and the ability of a business owner to operate as they see fit. We try and honor those requests if we choose to utilize that business. If we don't like it, we go somewhere else.

Speaking of which, has anybody cancelled their Amazon subscription yet?
Amazon can go to hell I bought 2 things from them my whole life!
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
4,995
Founder does have a point.

Twitter list billions today. So did FB.

Both are being condemned from world leaders from Mexico, to Germany, to Uganda.

FB is facing anti trust lawsuits.

"Let a sleeping dog lie" is generally good advice.

Zuckerberg has really exposed FB to worldwide government scrutiny. His investors cannot be happy.

Discovery in those cases are going to be REAL BAD for Twitter, APPLE, and to some extent now, AMAZON.

But courts are slow. Until then the inmates(millennials who are behind scene at tech companies) are running the show.

The participation trophy generation is flex mode.
 

wetmule

Very Active Member
Messages
1,791
Founder does have a point.

Twitter list billions today. So did FB.

Both are being condemned from world leaders from Mexico, to Germany, to Uganda.

FB is facing anti trust lawsuits.

"Let a sleeping dog lie" is generally good advice.

Zuckerberg has really exposed FB to worldwide government scrutiny. His investors cannot be happy.

Discovery in those cases are going to be REAL BAD for Twitter, APPLE, and to some extent now, AMAZON.

But courts are slow. Until then the inmates(millennials who are behind scene at tech companies) are running the show.

The participation trophy generation is flex mode.
They have more money than God... and they're friends with the judges
 

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
10,052
Founder does have a point.

Twitter list billions today. So did FB.

Both are being condemned from world leaders from Mexico, to Germany, to Uganda.

FB is facing anti trust lawsuits.

"Let a sleeping dog lie" is generally good advice.

Zuckerberg has really exposed FB to worldwide government scrutiny. His investors cannot be happy.

Discovery in those cases are going to be REAL BAD for Twitter, APPLE, and to some extent now, AMAZON.

But courts are slow. Until then the inmates(millennials who are behind scene at tech companies) are running the show.

The participation trophy generation is flex mode.
I doubt Twitter is worried about market cap loss. They just need to remind investors that had that section 230 protection been gone over night a couple weeks ago the stock would have taken a far, far greater hit.
 

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