Do We Have A Case?

You don't have to tolerate Twitter. I've never been on Twitter in my life.

Here is your problem. The first question is, does Twitter, no matter how nosy they might be, have a duty to intervene?

I don't know what the Twitter police does, if they are looking for harassment, or on-line predators, they might not have a duty to intervene at all when someone is in distress no matter how severe.


Really? Harassment is of greater concern than a desperate youth in dire need of assistance?

You know what? Sometimes I really believe I am in an era I belong not; I had simply time traveled to wrong era or dimension or universe.

That's because you want what should be instead of what is.

If the twitter police are supposed to be looking out for harassment, that's the extent of their duty of care. They just have no duty of care to someone in some other kind of distress. It's not a matter of concern. It is a matter of legal obligation.

Try this. Someone is hired to clean up trash on the beach and required to report any dead whales, dolphins or seals that wash up. While they are so engaged, they observe someone screaming for help drowning in the waves. Is there a legal duty to call for help? The answer is no. They don't. Suppose the person is a certified lifeguard, does that mean there is a duty to help or call for help? The answer is no. They don't.

I suppose the answer to your question as to whether or not there is a case is no, you don't.


Everything you wrote above is typical response of robots. There is no true human that would see another human (regardless of ethnicity, nationality, race or creed) in distress and not reach out in some way.

I once chauffeured and remember instances I had to intervene to preserve others and never failed, though risky. An example:

1). I had picked up a group of four (2 males and 2 females) in front of club in Downtown Houston at about 2 AM. The males were alert, but both females were drunk. I just assumed all had gone out together. About midway to destination, one of the females slurringly asked me where we were headed. I gave her the western destination given by guys (whom I also remember dropping before with another set of females) and she protested:

"I live in the North part of town," she said.

"Your male friends gave me the address," I told her.

"These are not my friends! I just met them in the club. Please, take me home," she slurred.

The other female who appeared less drunk told me it was okay to continue to destination, seeing I had moved to right lane and was coming to a stop.

"No! I want to go home," the protesting female continued.

I pushed the emergency button in my commercial vehicle to activate camera and get company dispatch tracking me. I immediately drove to a manned security booth I had spotted ahead and stopped. I informed both males and willing female I was calling a second cab for them, but would take protesting female to her home and ordered them out. I asked for current displayed fare from guys less late night surcharge and waved goodbye. But as I started to drive away with protesting female, her friend ran to me and begged to come along. I let her in and as we drove away, I could see requested cab stopping by opportunists.

The most interesting facts in this case are that both males were very handsome and lived in an affluent community, and both females were college students and also lived in an upscale North Houston community.

Was it my business to intervene and preserve at least one of these silly females from predators?

YES! I strongly believe that I am always where God wants me to be for a reason, though most times I wish I was not. I may not have saved other victims of these particular predators, but on that specific day, a protesting female needed my help. And I am glad I was there to render help!

Long and short: A true human does not need green light or directive from anyone to reach out to another human in need.
 
so if someone were to tweet that they have blue balls, they should be able to sue Twitter if Twitter don't send over a hot 21 year old blonde to blow that person?


Vaard, you are comparing apples and oranges.
 
in history there are many examples of other countries to interfere in the internal affairs of independent countries. For example, Libya. Next country of Iran, and then Belarus. But if Iran's oil, why do we Belarus? Belarus is no oil. I found a video of what is happening in Belarus and Europe now. We are funding the opposition of those countries that we do not need, we say there violated human rights, and what is happening with us? Here is the video YouTube -} ziklon100 -} "Integration into the European Union!"


Jackal, please stick to the topic in this discussion, would you. This discussion is about an abused Houston-area teenage girl who did not get help from authorities and turned to Twitter as last resort, and yet no one reached out to her. Got it?

Why would anyone be obligated to reach out to her? Because it would be really cool if they did?


Why? Because that is the human thing to do.
 
What's the point? Everyone (including myself) complains that the government spies on civilians too much and then there is a faction that claims that government has the responsibility to monitor private (twitter) accounts to prevent suicides? I don't think there is much merit in that argument.
 
What's the point? Everyone (including myself) complains that the government spies on civilians too much and then there is a faction that claims that government has the responsibility to monitor private (twitter) accounts to prevent suicides? I don't think there is much merit in that argument.


They have been spying for decades and will no doubt continue to do so. At least they could use the technology to preserve lives when necessary!

And as per merit of argument: I see plenty under natural and common law. And I bet you would not be talking about merit of law were it you or your loved one who had not been assisted by nosy authorities after injustice by other bunch of authorities.
 
Really? Harassment is of greater concern than a desperate youth in dire need of assistance?

You know what? Sometimes I really believe I am in an era I belong not; I had simply time traveled to wrong era or dimension or universe.

That's because you want what should be instead of what is.

If the twitter police are supposed to be looking out for harassment, that's the extent of their duty of care. They just have no duty of care to someone in some other kind of distress. It's not a matter of concern. It is a matter of legal obligation.

Try this. Someone is hired to clean up trash on the beach and required to report any dead whales, dolphins or seals that wash up. While they are so engaged, they observe someone screaming for help drowning in the waves. Is there a legal duty to call for help? The answer is no. They don't. Suppose the person is a certified lifeguard, does that mean there is a duty to help or call for help? The answer is no. They don't.

I suppose the answer to your question as to whether or not there is a case is no, you don't.


Everything you wrote above is typical response of robots. There is no true human that would see another human (regardless of ethnicity, nationality, race or creed) in distress and not reach out in some way.

I once chauffeured and remember instances I had to intervene to preserve others and never failed, though risky. An example:

1). I had picked up a group of four (2 males and 2 females) in front of club in Downtown Houston at about 2 AM. The males were alert, but both females were drunk. I just assumed all had gone out together. About midway to destination, one of the females slurringly asked me where we were headed. I gave her the western destination given by guys (whom I also remember dropping before with another set of females) and she protested:

"I live in the North part of town," she said.

"Your male friends gave me the address," I told her.

"These are not my friends! I just met them in the club. Please, take me home," she slurred.

The other female who appeared less drunk told me it was okay to continue to destination, seeing I had moved to right lane and was coming to a stop.

"No! I want to go home," the protesting female continued.

I pushed the emergency button in my commercial vehicle to activate camera and get company dispatch tracking me. I immediately drove to a manned security booth I had spotted ahead and stopped. I informed both males and willing female I was calling a second cab for them, but would take protesting female to her home and ordered them out. I asked for current displayed fare from guys less late night surcharge and waved goodbye. But as I started to drive away with protesting female, her friend ran to me and begged to come along. I let her in and as we drove away, I could see requested cab stopping by opportunists.

The most interesting facts in this case are that both males were very handsome and lived in an affluent community, and both females were college students and also lived in an upscale North Houston community.

Was it my business to intervene and preserve at least one of these silly females from predators?

YES! I strongly believe that I am always where God wants me to be for a reason, though most times I wish I was not. I may not have saved other victims of these particular predators, but on that specific day, a protesting female needed my help. And I am glad I was there to render help!

Long and short: A true human does not need green light or directive from anyone to reach out to another human in need.

You didn't ask that. You asked if there was a case. Without a duty there is no case. If you believe that you have some moral purpose to intervene, that's your business. Go. Do. We are not all charged with a legal obligation to "help" where we can.
 
What's the point? Everyone (including myself) complains that the government spies on civilians too much and then there is a faction that claims that government has the responsibility to monitor private (twitter) accounts to prevent suicides? I don't think there is much merit in that argument.


They have been spying for decades and will no doubt continue to do so. At least they could use the technology to preserve lives when necessary!

And as per merit of argument: I see plenty under natural and common law. And I bet you would not be talking about merit of law were it you or your loved one who had not been assisted by nosy authorities after injustice by other bunch of authorities.

You are simply wrong. Someone spying on civilians is paid to find out certain things, spotting a teenager in an emotional funk isn't one of those things. Likely whoever reported it would be fired on the spot. I'd fire them if they worked for me. If you think there is some law, some common law that imposes an obligation to help others in the absence of a legal duty, I surely would like to see it. There isn't one.
 
What's the point? Everyone (including myself) complains that the government spies on civilians too much and then there is a faction that claims that government has the responsibility to monitor private (twitter) accounts to prevent suicides? I don't think there is much merit in that argument.


They have been spying for decades and will no doubt continue to do so. At least they could use the technology to preserve lives when necessary!

And as per merit of argument: I see plenty under natural and common law. And I bet you would not be talking about merit of law were it you or your loved one who had not been assisted by nosy authorities after injustice by other bunch of authorities.

You are simply wrong. Someone spying on civilians is paid to find out certain things, spotting a teenager in an emotional funk isn't one of those things. Likely whoever reported it would be fired on the spot. I'd fire them if they worked for me. If you think there is some law, some common law that imposes an obligation to help others in the absence of a legal duty, I surely would like to see it. There isn't one.


Katzndogz, we are talking about the government and Twitter police! These are not some mere PI! While Twitter has a much lesser duty to attempt to preserve its users, I definitely expect nosy government to at least reach out to people on its territory that are in distress! This was an abused and desperate US child seeking help!
 
They have been spying for decades and will no doubt continue to do so. At least they could use the technology to preserve lives when necessary!

And as per merit of argument: I see plenty under natural and common law. And I bet you would not be talking about merit of law were it you or your loved one who had not been assisted by nosy authorities after injustice by other bunch of authorities.

You are simply wrong. Someone spying on civilians is paid to find out certain things, spotting a teenager in an emotional funk isn't one of those things. Likely whoever reported it would be fired on the spot. I'd fire them if they worked for me. If you think there is some law, some common law that imposes an obligation to help others in the absence of a legal duty, I surely would like to see it. There isn't one.


Katzndogz, we are talking about the government and Twitter police! These are not some mere PI! While Twitter has a much lesser duty to attempt to preserve its users, I definitely expect nosy government to at least reach out to people on its territory that are in distress! This was an abused and desperate US child seeking help!

It doesn't matter! There is absolutely no duty to intervene and help when people are in some kind of emotional distress. Not even your local PD has that kind of duty. What is it that you think someone should do? Reach out to the depresssed? Based on citizenship no less!

I understand your frustration that we live in a cold and heartless world where the government ignores the cries of desperate children. Nevertheless this is the way it is. You asked if there was a case. I took you at your word. There is no case.
 
What's the point? Everyone (including myself) complains that the government spies on civilians too much and then there is a faction that claims that government has the responsibility to monitor private (twitter) accounts to prevent suicides? I don't think there is much merit in that argument.


They have been spying for decades and will no doubt continue to do so. At least they could use the technology to preserve lives when necessary!

And as per merit of argument: I see plenty under natural and common law. And I bet you would not be talking about merit of law were it you or your loved one who had not been assisted by nosy authorities after injustice by other bunch of authorities.

The argument is that the government has been spying on civilians for so long that they should refine their technique to include the monitoring of the accounts of 18 year old girls to sift for evidence of possible suicide attempts? That's an example of skewed logic if I ever heard it.
 
Days ago, an abused Houston-area teenage girl who has unsuccessfully sought help from authorities committed suicide immediately after having tweeted hundreds of tweets describing her long ordeal, and all while being followed by several entities and by nosy Twitter police and big brother.

Why did Twitter police or online watchdog not intervene? On several occasions, I have had Twitter block my flamboyant tweets when tweet-related issues are hot and then conveniently display my tweets hours later when heat on tweet-related issues have subsided!

The traumatized girl, Miss Ashley Billasano of Rosenberg’s BF Terry High School, had skipped school and took to the internet hoping to get help and none came, even with several entities following her ordeal online! With all the alerts and surveillance, no help came to Ashley Billasano when it mattered.

Are there grounds to go after Twitter or nosy bog brother on issues such as this? If their nosiness cannot even intervene when a desperate youth needs help, why tolerate them?


Why Didn't They Intervene? - 18-Year-old Girl Tweets 144 Times before Committing Suicide

The problem is that so many tweets are not taken seriously... I mean, I have a twitter account for news, tech, and sciences... with very few friends (if any) and I always end up weeding through tweets that aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Even if something may look serious, chances are it won't be taken seriously if it's been tweeted. Should THAT change? :dunno:
 
What's the point? Everyone (including myself) complains that the government spies on civilians too much and then there is a faction that claims that government has the responsibility to monitor private (twitter) accounts to prevent suicides? I don't think there is much merit in that argument.


They have been spying for decades and will no doubt continue to do so. At least they could use the technology to preserve lives when necessary!

And as per merit of argument: I see plenty under natural and common law. And I bet you would not be talking about merit of law were it you or your loved one who had not been assisted by nosy authorities after injustice by other bunch of authorities.

The argument is that the government has been spying on civilians for so long that they should refine their technique to include the monitoring of the accounts of 18 year old girls to sift for evidence of possible suicide attempts? That's an example of skewed logic if I ever heard it.


I am not impressed by your diadatic. My point is clear: Why couldn't nosy government and Twitter police, known to live-suppress display of flamboyant tweets, intervene or even attempt to reach out to youth in despair?
 
Days ago, an abused Houston-area teenage girl who has unsuccessfully sought help from authorities committed suicide immediately after having tweeted hundreds of tweets describing her long ordeal, and all while being followed by several entities and by nosy Twitter police and big brother.

Why did Twitter police or online watchdog not intervene? On several occasions, I have had Twitter block my flamboyant tweets when tweet-related issues are hot and then conveniently display my tweets hours later when heat on tweet-related issues have subsided!

The traumatized girl, Miss Ashley Billasano of Rosenberg’s BF Terry High School, had skipped school and took to the internet hoping to get help and none came, even with several entities following her ordeal online! With all the alerts and surveillance, no help came to Ashley Billasano when it mattered.

Are there grounds to go after Twitter or nosy bog brother on issues such as this? If their nosiness cannot even intervene when a desperate youth needs help, why tolerate them?


Why Didn't They Intervene? - 18-Year-old Girl Tweets 144 Times before Committing Suicide

The problem is that so many tweets are not taken seriously... I mean, I have a twitter account for news, tech, and sciences... with very few friends (if any) and I always end up weeding through tweets that aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Even if something may look serious, chances are it won't be taken seriously if it's been tweeted. Should THAT change? :dunno:


I beg to differ. I am aware that at least Twitter is in the habit of suppressing flamboyant tweets from thinkers when topic is heated online and would display such tweets much later. I watch them do it often with my "humble" tweets. And on some occasions, I have even backfired by immediately tweeting to Twitter that I am aware of its deeds.
 
They have been spying for decades and will no doubt continue to do so. At least they could use the technology to preserve lives when necessary!

And as per merit of argument: I see plenty under natural and common law. And I bet you would not be talking about merit of law were it you or your loved one who had not been assisted by nosy authorities after injustice by other bunch of authorities.

The argument is that the government has been spying on civilians for so long that they should refine their technique to include the monitoring of the accounts of 18 year old girls to sift for evidence of possible suicide attempts? That's an example of skewed logic if I ever heard it.


I am not impressed by your diadatic. My point is clear: Why couldn't nosy government and Twitter police, known to live-suppress display of flamboyant tweets, intervene or even attempt to reach out to youth in despair?

On they could. It's just not their job to do so.
 
Imo, no there's not a case. Help should be sought from friends, family, school counselors, and suicide hotlines.
 
The argument is that the government has been spying on civilians for so long that they should refine their technique to include the monitoring of the accounts of 18 year old girls to sift for evidence of possible suicide attempts? That's an example of skewed logic if I ever heard it.


I am not impressed by your diadatic. My point is clear: Why couldn't nosy government and Twitter police, known to live-suppress display of flamboyant tweets, intervene or even attempt to reach out to youth in despair?

On they could. It's just not their job to do so.


I thought their job was to look out of the well-being of people on US territory. Doesn't the life of an abused youth in despair qualify?

I am working on software that would completely disable, shutdown and delete data of any entity spying on me. Thus, if you hear the database of such and such was completely deleted, then that just may have been the work of magnificent L'Afrique.
 

Forum List

Back
Top