Almost 140 serious injuries to Capitol Cops

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
The government's role has always been regulation and resolution of disputes.

If twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms then they should be held to that claim.
Ah, so conservatives love regulation when it comes to protecting their buddies but hate regulation when it comes to protecting minorities and people they despise.

Try to be less transparent asshole.
We accept regulation that attempts to regulate, and lies within constitutional limits.

A contracted wedding cake is not a public accommodation.
We accept regulation that attempts to regulate.
Some real wisdom there.

Shit posting on Twitter is not a public accommodation.
Actually most regulation by progressives is attempts to ban or destroy, not regulate.

Never claimed it was a PA, claim that it's a new digital commons.

Sorry if these new-fangled ideas go over your pint sized head.
Your can’t claim Facebook is a commons. Not without overriding the constitution.

Thanks for your “new think”.
What part of the constitution?

It's must be sad being an analog man in a digital age.
The part of the constitution allows you to absorb private property into common ownership?

You’re a parasite to the digital age. Contribute nothing but making it a cesspool. Why do you have to ruin everything you touch?
The property isn't being absorbed, it's being regulated.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,554
Reaction score
8,148
Points
465

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,554
Reaction score
8,148
Points
465
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,554
Reaction score
8,148
Points
465
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,554
Reaction score
8,148
Points
465
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
28,334
Reaction score
13,748
Points
1,100
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
thats a lie,,, they are the digital commons,,,
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
and when someone tries to make an alternative to either, then they go after the servers, then the banks, then the access providers, then the people using it. All to silence the opposition.

Twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms hosting others content, and they are lying, and you are OK with them lying.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,554
Reaction score
8,148
Points
465
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
and when someone tries to make an alternative to either, then they go after the servers, then the banks, then the access providers, then the people using it. All to silence the opposition.

Twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms hosting others content, and they are lying, and you are OK with them lying.
Twitter and Facebook claim the right to take down content they find objectionable because it’s being hosted on their property.

I feel the same way.

You want to make laws regarding common carrier status for access providers, I’m all for it. In fact, we already did that.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
and when someone tries to make an alternative to either, then they go after the servers, then the banks, then the access providers, then the people using it. All to silence the opposition.

Twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms hosting others content, and they are lying, and you are OK with them lying.
Twitter and Facebook claim the right to take down content they find objectionable because it’s being hosted on their property.

I feel the same way.

You want to make laws regarding common carrier status for access providers, I’m all for it. In fact, we already did that.
You only feel the same way because it's people you don't like being silenced. You aren't for free speech, you are for your speech.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,554
Reaction score
8,148
Points
465
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
and when someone tries to make an alternative to either, then they go after the servers, then the banks, then the access providers, then the people using it. All to silence the opposition.

Twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms hosting others content, and they are lying, and you are OK with them lying.
Twitter and Facebook claim the right to take down content they find objectionable because it’s being hosted on their property.

I feel the same way.

You want to make laws regarding common carrier status for access providers, I’m all for it. In fact, we already did that.
You only feel the same way because it's people you don't like being silenced. You aren't for free speech, you are for your speech.
I feel that way because I know that the internet is full of trolls who enjoy destroying what other people have built.

And you want the government to force people to let them do it.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
and when someone tries to make an alternative to either, then they go after the servers, then the banks, then the access providers, then the people using it. All to silence the opposition.

Twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms hosting others content, and they are lying, and you are OK with them lying.
Twitter and Facebook claim the right to take down content they find objectionable because it’s being hosted on their property.

I feel the same way.

You want to make laws regarding common carrier status for access providers, I’m all for it. In fact, we already did that.
You only feel the same way because it's people you don't like being silenced. You aren't for free speech, you are for your speech.
I feel that way because I know that the internet is full of trolls who enjoy destroying what other people have built.

And you want the government to force people to let them do it.
you only care about "trolls" you disagree with. Lefty trolls are fine for you.

I want government to force them to live up to what they are saying they are providing.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
24,554
Reaction score
8,148
Points
465
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
and when someone tries to make an alternative to either, then they go after the servers, then the banks, then the access providers, then the people using it. All to silence the opposition.

Twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms hosting others content, and they are lying, and you are OK with them lying.
Twitter and Facebook claim the right to take down content they find objectionable because it’s being hosted on their property.

I feel the same way.

You want to make laws regarding common carrier status for access providers, I’m all for it. In fact, we already did that.
You only feel the same way because it's people you don't like being silenced. You aren't for free speech, you are for your speech.
I feel that way because I know that the internet is full of trolls who enjoy destroying what other people have built.

And you want the government to force people to let them do it.
you only care about "trolls" you disagree with. Lefty trolls are fine for you.

I want government to force them to live up to what they are saying they are providing.
Twitter and Facebook don’t say they’re the best place to check out unhinged conspiracy theories and harassment of transgendered people, do they?

Because that’s what you’re really defending here.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,204
Reaction score
13,667
Points
2,190
It's a new concept of commons, a digital commons.
Sounds like a rebranding of authoritarianism.
Sounds like argumentum ad absurdum.

This coming from someone who supports 430k fines for someone not baking a cake.
What’s the fine going to be for kicking shit posters off Twitter?

Gay people didn’t do anything to the baker. Shit posters on Twitter are turning Twitter into a cesspool.
They don't have to fine them, because twitter wouldn't have to do anything except live up to its supposed goal of being an open discussion platform.

The baker didn't have an issue with serving a gay person, they didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
Ah, the old “I wouldn’t be an authoritarian thug if you just submit to my demands” line. You’re just doing great at this.

The only reason he didn’t want to serve them a cake is because he did have issue with them, through no fault of their own. If the gay couple had been taking a dump in the middle of his bakery, I’d be all for kicking them out. However, someone makes Twitter a cesspool and you want to force Twitter to help them do it. Hell no.
He does not believe same sex unions are marriages, and didn't want to make a cake for that one specific event.

On the other hand Twitter has become vital to the countries political discourse, and thus regulating it is in the best interest of the country.
It’s in the best interest of trolls, but not the nation.
It's in the best interest of free discourse, something you can't stand because you know you would lose.
Free discourse does not require anyone else to publish your shit posts. Never has. Never will.

The internet is a digital commons. Facebook and Twitter are not.
and when someone tries to make an alternative to either, then they go after the servers, then the banks, then the access providers, then the people using it. All to silence the opposition.

Twitter and facebook claim to be open platforms hosting others content, and they are lying, and you are OK with them lying.
Twitter and Facebook claim the right to take down content they find objectionable because it’s being hosted on their property.

I feel the same way.

You want to make laws regarding common carrier status for access providers, I’m all for it. In fact, we already did that.
You only feel the same way because it's people you don't like being silenced. You aren't for free speech, you are for your speech.
I feel that way because I know that the internet is full of trolls who enjoy destroying what other people have built.

And you want the government to force people to let them do it.
you only care about "trolls" you disagree with. Lefty trolls are fine for you.

I want government to force them to live up to what they are saying they are providing.
Twitter and Facebook don’t say they’re the best place to check out unhinged conspiracy theories and harassment of transgendered people, do they?

Because that’s what you’re really defending here.
Saying men are men and women are women is harassment?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top