7000-1. Guess Who Won

[martybegan]

If they do, their platform does.

Otherwise the first amendment is meaningless.

If you want your message on the internet, put it there yourself. Don’t be a lazy little fascist.

The first amendment becomes meaningless when government proxies out its censorship to corporations.

 

[colfax_m]

The first amendment becomes meaningless when government proxies out its censorship to corporations.

So now you're switching gears to a different tact.

At first you said that the corporation didn't have first amendment rights, now you're saying that they can't violate the first amendment because they're proxies of government.

This is an ENTIRELY different argument.

You're in retreat from shitty arguments, Marty. Should I take you behind the woodshed on this one too?

 

[martybegan]

So now you're switching gears to a different tact.

At first you said that the corporation didn't have first amendment rights, now you're saying that they can't violate the first amendment because they're proxies of government.

This is an ENTIRELY different argument.

You're in retreat from shitty arguments, Marty. Should I take you behind the woodshed on this one too?

If you claim something on your platform isn't your opinions, then why should you be able to claim first amendment protections on them? If you claim your platform is open for discussion, and have immunity from any responsibility, why feel the need to censor people?

It's all the same argument.

 

[colfax_m]

If you claim something on your platform isn't your opinions, then why should you be able to claim first amendment protections on them? If you claim your platform is open for discussion, and have immunity from any responsibility, why feel the need to censor people?

It's all the same argument.

First amendment protects people from having to propagate speech that they don't want to, even if you don't have legal liability for the speech. Section 230 does not take away people's rights. It can't'.

It's not the same argument. You're a little baby fascist who wants to deprive people of their rights for your own political gain. You need to decide whether the first amendment applies even to people you don't like or decide if these people you don't like are actually government actors. You're going to lose both arguments.

 

[martybegan]

First amendment protects people from having to propagate speech that they don't want to, even if you don't have legal liability for the speech. Section 230 does not take away people's rights. It can't'.

It's not the same argument. You're a little baby fascist who wants to deprive people of their rights for your own political gain. You need to decide whether the first amendment applies even to people you don't like or decide if these people you don't like are actually government actors. You're going to lose both arguments.

So twitter should only post things they agree with despite claiming to be a free platform?

You want to shunt out half of the electorate from participating in the new global commons, because you know your side can't hack it on a fair playing field.

 

[colfax_m]

So twitter should only post things they agree with despite claiming to be a free platform?

You want to shunt out half of the electorate from participating in the new global commons, because you know your side can't hack it on a fair playing field.

Pearl clutching breathless hyperbole makes you look like a moron more than anything else. Half the electorate isn't shut out of anything you lunatic.

And even if they were, that's how freedom works. Every excuse you have for violating the constitution is bullshit. You just want to take away people's rights so that you can help your party against the will of the people you're forcing to do the work to help them.

 

[martybegan]

Pearl clutching breathless hyperbole makes you look like a moron more than anything else. Half the electorate isn't shut out of anything you lunatic.

And even if they were, that's how freedom works. Every excuse you have for violating the constitution is bullshit. You just want to take away people's rights so that you can help your party against the will of the people you're forcing to do the work to help them.

Again, if it's not their content, the 1st amendment doesn't apply.

 

[colfax_m]

Again, if it's not their content, the 1st amendment doesn't apply.

It's their platform. The 1st amendment does apply and anyone with a lick of common sense knows this.

The speech exists on their property. Supported by their software. Distributed by their bandwidth. The idea that they don't have a first amendment right to not participate in that speech defies all possible logic.

 

[martybegan]

It's their platform. The 1st amendment does apply and anyone with a lick of common sense knows this.

The speech exists on their property. Supported by their software. Distributed by their bandwidth. The idea that they don't have a first amendment right to not participate in that speech defies all possible logic.

Nope, not their opinions, not the 1st amendment. Again, you have better arguments via the property route and even those don't work when they claim to be "open platforms"

 

[colfax_m]

Nope, not their opinions, not the 1st amendment. Again, you have better arguments via the property route and even those don't work when they claim to be "open platforms"

Your understanding of the constitution is warped by your little baby fascist impulses to help your political party.

Their platform, means they have a first amendment right not to promote such speech, just as a newspaper can't be forced to publish an OpEd from a politician even though it's not their opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Your understanding of the constitution is warped by your little baby fascist impulses to help your political party.

Their platform, means they have a first amendment right not to promote such speech, just as a newspaper can't be forced to publish an OpEd from a politician even though it's not their opinion.

So anything they allow to be posted they promote?

They promote furry lifestyle, or anorexia?

 

[colfax_m]

So anything they allow to be posted they promote?

They promote furry lifestyle, or anorexia?

No, they shadowban some material, but that's what you little baby fascists want to outlaw as well.

The algorithm will promote posts about things to people who have similar interactions. Do you not know how social media works?

That's right, you don't even know the difference between routers and servers, ISPs and content providers.

You are trying to argue about something you really don't understand which is why you fail.

 

[martybegan]

No, they shadowban some material, but that's what you little baby fascists want to outlaw as well.

The algorithm will promote posts about things to people who have similar interactions. Do you not know how social media works?

That's right, you don't even know the difference between routers and servers, ISPs and content providers.

You are trying to argue about something you really don't understand which is why you fail.

you didn't answer they question. If everything on their platform the promote, are they promoting furry groups?

Are the promoting a candidate they allow to tweet?

 

[colfax_m]

you didn't answer they question. If everything on their platform the promote, are they promoting furry groups?

Are the promoting a candidate they allow to tweet?

I did. The algorithm will promote anything on the platform to other users interested in that kind of content.

Even if they didn’t promote, merely hosting and distributing content is enough to trigger the first amendment.

 

[martybegan]

I did. The algorithm will promote anything on the platform to other users interested in that kind of content.

Even if they didn’t promote, merely hosting and distributing content is enough to trigger the first amendment.

Nope. So if they are promoting a candidate and not say his opponent, doesn't that constitute a donation to the candidate they are allowing to post?

 

[Catman51]

The law is the law. The fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. You can sit and piss and moan all you want.

It’s irrelevant.

They have first amendment rights. The fact that you’re pissed that someone else has rights just shows what a pathetic little wannabe fascist you are.

So you have no problem with the law allowing slavery, right? After all, the law is the law.

You redefine the word moron.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope. So if they are promoting a candidate and not say his opponent, doesn't that constitute a donation to the candidate they are allowing to post?

No. It’s free speech and you can’t consider free speech a campaign donation.

 

[Catman51]

If they do, their platform does.

Otherwise the first amendment is meaningless.

If you want your message on the internet, put it there yourself. Don’t be a lazy little fascist.

Hey, the fascist is now pretending that others are what he is himself. Projection on display from someone without the brains to empty out a boot.

 

[martybegan]

No. It’s free speech and you can’t consider free speech a campaign donation.

It's not their speech, it's the candidates, and twitter is giving it to him/her for free while banning their opponent.

Sounds like a contribution to me.

 

[Catman51]

No. It’s free speech and you can’t consider free speech a campaign donation.

Why not? Promoting one candidate over another by canceling one is a prevention of free speech, even a toad such as you should be able to understand that, unless your lobotomy took a little too much of what was your brain.