Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gotcha. So it’s conservatives saying to social media that these companies need to comply with their demands or conservatives will harm them and everyone that uses them.If necessary yesGiven it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive
punitive is ok with me
It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,
It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.
its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,
This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.
It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.
There’s half a billion tweets every day. Doesn’t seem very limited to me.speech is already limited,, THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!Which would limit speech on the internet, not expand it.They can withdraw this rule that you are so fond ofSince when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?
Given it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive
so its a big GOTCHA game for you now,,,Gotcha. So it’s conservatives saying to social media that these companies need to comply with their demands or conservatives will harm them and everyone that uses them.If necessary yesGiven it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive
punitive is ok with me
And that doesn’t strike you as just a tad authoritarian?
There’s half a billion tweets every day. Doesn’t seem very limited to me.speech is already limited,, THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!Which would limit speech on the internet, not expand it.They can withdraw this rule that you are so fond ofSince when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?
Given it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive
Who has provided more speech to more people than these companies?
It’s not special. It applies to every website equally.It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,
It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.
its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,
This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.
It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT DONT YOU???
it means its special for a specific reason,,,
I replied directly to your post. If anyone deflecting, it’s you.There’s half a billion tweets every day. Doesn’t seem very limited to me.speech is already limited,, THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!Which would limit speech on the internet, not expand it.They can withdraw this rule that you are so fond ofSince when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?
Given it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive
Who has provided more speech to more people than these companies?
your deflecting again,,
No, this is actually an example of exactly what I was claiming earlier. It’s about power.so its a big GOTCHA game for you now,,,Gotcha. So it’s conservatives saying to social media that these companies need to comply with their demands or conservatives will harm them and everyone that uses them.If necessary yesGiven it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive
punitive is ok with me
And that doesn’t strike you as just a tad authoritarian?
thats your word games at play,,
It’s not special. It applies to every website equally.It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,
It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.
its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,
This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.
It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT DONT YOU???
it means its special for a specific reason,,,
I replied directly to your post. If anyone deflecting, it’s you.There’s half a billion tweets every day. Doesn’t seem very limited to me.speech is already limited,, THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!Which would limit speech on the internet, not expand it.They can withdraw this rule that you are so fond ofSince when does Congress get the authority to make that demand?
Given it would accomplish the opposite of your stated goal, I can only assume that would be intended to be punitive
Who has provided more speech to more people than these companies?
your deflecting again,,
Social media companies provide for more speech than anyone else in history. The suggestion of repealing section 230 will reduce speech, not expand it.
Are you even aware what the protection we are talking about does?It’s not special. It applies to every website equally.It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,
It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.
its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,
This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.
It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT DONT YOU???
it means its special for a specific reason,,,
not if they dont have a comment section,,
Who says they aren’t?then they should apply their rules equally across the board,,, they are the cause of their own problems,,
Are you even aware what the protection we are talking about does?It’s not special. It applies to every website equally.It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,
It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.
its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,
This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.
It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT DONT YOU???
it means its special for a specific reason,,,
not if they dont have a comment section,,
that only means youre an ignorant fool that doesnt know what hes talking about,,,Who says they aren’t?then they should apply their rules equally across the board,,, they are the cause of their own problems,,
The people who were kicked off should learn to follow the rules. They are the cause of their own problems.
So how could that possibly apply to a website without a “comment section”?Are you even aware what the protection we are talking about does?It’s not special. It applies to every website equally.It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,
It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.
its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,
This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.
It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT DONT YOU???
it means its special for a specific reason,,,
not if they dont have a comment section,,
do you???
its a special carveout called section 230 that protects site owners from something people not involved with the site say,,
So how could that possibly apply to a website without a “comment section”?Are you even aware what the protection we are talking about does?It’s not special. It applies to every website equally.It’s not special because it applies to that circumstance. Any website with that circumstance is covered. A website that had no comment section has no need for such protection. The protection literally couldn’t apply to websites without comment sections.if you cant understand it in its simplest form you will never understand the big picture,,,It only applies to comment sections (as you so simplistically put it) so yeah you’re right but totally missing the point.wrong again,, its doesnt apply if they dont have a comments section,, which is most of the sites on the internet,,,
It’s not a special protection given it applies to the comment section of anyone that has a comment section.
its a special protect because it only applies to sites with a comment section,, thats what speacial means,, its specific to who it applies, not every site,, hence special,,
This is a mind-boggling strange criticism.
It would be a special protection if it applied to Twitter but not Parler, for example.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT DONT YOU???
it means its special for a specific reason,,,
not if they dont have a comment section,,
do you???
its a special carveout called section 230 that protects site owners from something people not involved with the site say,,
what doesnt make sense is you trolling your own thread,,,So your criticism is that it’s special because it applies to literally every website where it could possibly apply to?it doesnt and thats what makes it special,, my god youre a fucking idiot,,,
That doesn’t make any sense.
But it applies equally to everyone it could possibly apply to. It couldn’t possibly apply to anyone without an outside commenter.its special because its a special carveout for those that have outside commenters,,,
the fact that 230 exist proves its special dumbass,,But it applies equally to everyone it could possibly apply to. It couldn’t possibly apply to anyone without an outside commenter.its special because its a special carveout for those that have outside commenters,,,
Therefore it’s not special. How could it be made “not special”?
