CDZ Social media has become too big to remain private.... YES or NO?

[G.T.]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

 

[G.T.]

No one is taking away your free speech. The 1st amendment does not give you rights to private property. It protects you from being silenced by the gov't.

Yes sir. I do support removing their (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) special legal protections for which true platforms are eligible as they are certainly publishers and NOT unbiased platforms. This forum is a platform, for example.

They are not publishers. They allow users to publish.

When they censor one side, and favor another, they are publishers.

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit on the platform they invented and paid to build that you whiny folks get to use for free if you follow its rules and not use if you don't.

They are taking sides and suppressing the speech of their political rivals, to interfere in the election.

They are not just suppressing "kook conspiracy theories". YOu are a liar.

I don't respect your opinion on that sort of thing, the partisan thing makes people whiny irrational victims.

 

[Correll]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

 

[G.T.]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

And the correct response of the whiners is to start their own successful platform, or go hide in their victim corner.

 

[Correll]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

You people want to "cancel" businesses or people based on the most flimsy of excuses, until you benefit from their actions. And then, all of a sudden, you have a respect for private property that would make Ayn Rand look like an anarchist.


It's hypocrisy raised to an artform, and it is not fooling ANYONE, not even yourself.


You know you are lying.

 

[Moonglow]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

They have never banned me-not.t.

 

[G.T.]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

You people want to "cancel" businesses or people based on the most flimsy of excuses, until you benefit from their actions. And then, all of a sudden, you have a respect for private property that would make Ayn Rand look like an anarchist.


It's hypocrisy raised to an artform, and it is not fooling ANYONE, not even yourself.


You know you are lying.

Your illogical whines have zero effect on Adult conversation.

A platform you're free to use or free to leave - whining about how they run their business instead of leaving is a you problem. It doesn't matter how many pretzels you'd like to twist yourself into to pass the buck of the whine onto anyone else.

Conservatism on messageboards has elucidated the ugliest parts of the brain-state - the whiny victimhood. It's disgusting.

 

[Correll]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

And the correct response of the whiners is to start their own successful platform, or go hide in their victim corner.

Or point out that they are being dishonest dicks and that their actions are having a serious and negative impact on society and on individuals who engaged in good faith business with them,

and demand regulation of some sort to address it.


That is my point, and calling me a "whiner" is you admitting that you cannot seriously refute my point.


All you have is name calling, like a child.

 

[Correll]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

They have never banned me-not.t.

And if they gave you a pass for your behavior, and then banned a right leaning poster for something not nearly as bad as what you did,


would they be in the right or would they be assholes?

 

[G.T.]

These are memes pertaining to the argument within the OP. The underlying issue here, as has always been, is the Victim mentality and the fear-based, irrational/conspiratorial thinking:

 

[Correll]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

You people want to "cancel" businesses or people based on the most flimsy of excuses, until you benefit from their actions. And then, all of a sudden, you have a respect for private property that would make Ayn Rand look like an anarchist.


It's hypocrisy raised to an artform, and it is not fooling ANYONE, not even yourself.


You know you are lying.

Your illogical whines have zero effect on Adult conversation.

A platform you're free to use or free to leave - whining about how they run their business instead of leaving is a you problem. It doesn't matter how many pretzels you'd like to twist yourself into to pass the buck of the whine onto anyone else.

Conservatism on messageboards has elucidated the ugliest parts of the brain-state - the whiny victimhood. It's disgusting.

Yes, you made that point already. And I addressed it repeatedly.


THe fact is that Big Tech is causing harm to society as a whole and to many individuals who have engaged in business with them in good faith.


You are putting your partisan advantage over the good of society and the rights of the individuals screwed over by Big Tech.

 

[Moonglow]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

They have never banned me-not.t.

And if they gave you a pass for your behavior, and then banned a right leaning poster for something not nearly as bad as what you did,


would they be in the right or would they be assholes?

The taunting zone only proves you can still get banned no matter who's flag you carry

 

[G.T.]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

You people want to "cancel" businesses or people based on the most flimsy of excuses, until you benefit from their actions. And then, all of a sudden, you have a respect for private property that would make Ayn Rand look like an anarchist.


It's hypocrisy raised to an artform, and it is not fooling ANYONE, not even yourself.


You know you are lying.

Your illogical whines have zero effect on Adult conversation.

A platform you're free to use or free to leave - whining about how they run their business instead of leaving is a you problem. It doesn't matter how many pretzels you'd like to twist yourself into to pass the buck of the whine onto anyone else.

Conservatism on messageboards has elucidated the ugliest parts of the brain-state - the whiny victimhood. It's disgusting.

Yes, you made that point already. And I addressed it repeatedly.


THe fact is that Big Tech is causing harm to society as a whole and to many individuals who have engaged in business with them in good faith.


You are putting your partisan advantage over the good of society and the rights of the individuals screwed over by Big Tech.

There's no conglomerate 'Big Tech.' It's what the Messaging from the top-down Conservative whiners has been. A buzz word, a new enemy you were told to have and your Victim mentality sucked it up and now repeats it, as was designed. Zuckerberg started in a Dorky little College dorm and now you're after his coat-tails and want to be a Victim instead of doing your own hard work, or participating in a platform elsewhere which there's plenty...you're just sad that they're not as successful or popular. Victim, victim, victim.

 

[Correll]

These are memes pertaining to the argument within the OP. The underlying issue here, as has always been, is the Victim mentality and the fear-based, irrational/conspiratorial thinking:

View attachment 424574

View attachment 424575

View attachment 424576

YOur argument has been that BIg Tech has the RIGHT to kick anyone off their sites for whatever reason they want.


If they do that, then the people they kick off for no reason, people who often suffer serious financial loss because of it, are indeed, victims.


It is one thing to argue, even dishonestly, a hard core Private Property argument in favor of their actions.


It is another to argue in favor of their right to victimize anyone they want, AND THEN TO RIDICULE their victims for even complaining about it.


Indeed, some of your memes even seen to hint that you might be denying the discrimination is happening, after arguing in defense of the discrimination for dozens of posts.


I take it this is the part of the discussion, where the lib realizes he has lost and just starts throwing shit against the wall, hoping something sticks or at least, if he generations enough noise that it might distract from how badly he failed to support his position.

 

[Correll]

No, they're a Company making a decision not to post kook conspiracy theory bullshit...

Then they're not a platform but, rather, a publisher.

This forum permits people to post all sorts of bizarre views because this forum is a PLATFORM. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are PUBLISHERS because they censor a plethora opinions.

This forum has rules and can kick people and ban them.

Twitter, facebook and youtube can do the same - and you can also get off your ass, educate yourself, and build your own successful platform if your feelings don't like it.

And if they arbitrarily and unfairly kick and ban people who don't deserve it, based on their stated rules, and it makes it impossible to actually do what the site is designed for, ie have political discussions,


then they are assholes and morally and ethically in the wrong.


If the site were important enough that their misdeeds were a threat to the well being of the society, then society would have the right to respond.

They have never banned me-not.t.

And if they gave you a pass for your behavior, and then banned a right leaning poster for something not nearly as bad as what you did,


would they be in the right or would they be assholes?

The taunting zone only proves you can still get banned no matter who's flag you carry

i am not accusing this site mods of unfairness. It was a hypothetical.


GT is arguing that the unfairness is legal and thus I and other conservatives should just take it like a good little bitch.


He is not denying that it is happening.


Or he wasn't. HIs last post, sort of hinting maybe he might try that. If so, i expect him to try to have it both ways, Deny it happens while arguing it is ok to do it.


Liberals are like that.

 

[G.T.]

These are memes pertaining to the argument within the OP. The underlying issue here, as has always been, is the Victim mentality and the fear-based, irrational/conspiratorial thinking:

View attachment 424574

View attachment 424575

View attachment 424576

YOur argument has been that BIg Tech has the RIGHT to kick anyone off their sites for whatever reason they want.


If they do that, then the people they kick off for no reason, people who often suffer serious financial loss because of it, are indeed, victims.


It is one thing to argue, even dishonestly, a hard core Private Property argument in favor of their actions.


It is another to argue in favor of their right to victimize anyone they want, AND THEN TO RIDICULE their victims for even complaining about it.


Indeed, some of your memes even seen to hint that you might be denying the discrimination is happening, after arguing in defense of the discrimination for dozens of posts.


I take it this is the part of the discussion, where the lib realizes he has lost and just starts throwing shit against the wall, hoping something sticks or at least, if he generations enough noise that it might distract from how badly he failed to support his position.

I'm not reading more whoa is me whiney arguments, especially this long and conceited. I made my argument clear: This entire issue is a dreamed up Conservative whine because they were caught posting Dangerous conspiracy theory bullshit, they got caught, and the FREE platforms they were so graciously allowed by the owners to use said, @umm, no. Sorry bud fuck that. This isn't info wars. Go scream in a corner.@

This thread is a part of the corner.

 

[K9Buck]

And the correct response of the whiners is to start their own successful platform, or go hide in their victim corner.

So you agree that people should be able to make outrageous, libelous claims against others and be immune to being sued, right? In other words, someone could identify you by name, address, etc., and accuse you of being a pedophile and tell everyone in your community that you're a pedophile and the accuser should retain immunity from you suing them, right?

 

[G.T.]

I'll bet the Hannity listeners in the early 2000s when he was mocking the fairness Doctrine didn't imagine it'd be they, themselves whining for one years later because they didn't get their way on a free platform on the internet.

Boomers became what the memes wanted everyone to believe was the Millennial mentality. Victim victim victim...election STOLEN, investigations with arrests FAKE, whoa is me whoa is me. End responsibility now!!!

 

[Correll]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

You people want to "cancel" businesses or people based on the most flimsy of excuses, until you benefit from their actions. And then, all of a sudden, you have a respect for private property that would make Ayn Rand look like an anarchist.


It's hypocrisy raised to an artform, and it is not fooling ANYONE, not even yourself.


You know you are lying.

Your illogical whines have zero effect on Adult conversation.

A platform you're free to use or free to leave - whining about how they run their business instead of leaving is a you problem. It doesn't matter how many pretzels you'd like to twist yourself into to pass the buck of the whine onto anyone else.

Conservatism on messageboards has elucidated the ugliest parts of the brain-state - the whiny victimhood. It's disgusting.

Yes, you made that point already. And I addressed it repeatedly.


THe fact is that Big Tech is causing harm to society as a whole and to many individuals who have engaged in business with them in good faith.


You are putting your partisan advantage over the good of society and the rights of the individuals screwed over by Big Tech.

There's no conglomerate 'Big Tech.' It's what the Messaging from the top-down Conservative whiners has been. A buzz word, a new enemy you were told to have and your Victim mentality sucked it up and now repeats it, as was designed. Zuckerberg started in a Dorky little College dorm and now you're after his coat-tails and want to be a Victim instead of doing your own hard work, or participating in a platform elsewhere which there's plenty...you're just sad that they're not as successful or popular. Victim, victim, victim.

Funny, you just spent quite a bit of time arguing Big Tech has the right to do what they want with their sites, and suddenly you are realizing that they, ie Big Tech doesn't exist?

This coming from the guy that accused ME of having pretzel logic.


LOL!!!


Decide, lefty. Either they have the right to rule their sites in an unfair and arbitrary manner or they don't exist and the discrimination doesn't actually happen.


You don't get to hold both positions.


Is it ok if I call you Wally?

 

[G.T.]

I'm trying to remember . . . why did energy and utilities have to become public? Why did government have to be a vendor? What clause in the Constitution provides for this?

It's a good question really.....and in truth the government does not have the ability to provide any of those things and yet they must guarantee access to all lest some be denied based on prejudice or preference. Truth is we are always in the hands of privateers even if they are contracted out by the government.....

JO

A private company that does not provide service to certain communities or neighborhoods is not a a company that denies service to those communities and neighborhoods. It's just a company that doesn't provide service to them.

A company that says it will provide a service and then uses the power that providing that service gives them to pick sides and to censor one side and aide another, and interfere in an election,


is a problem that should be addressed by regulation.

That's the babyest cry baby anti conservative bullshit I've ever heard.


Don't like twitter? Build your fuckin own and make it successful.

Don't like MySpace? Build your fuckin own and make it successful. Oh wait, Facebook already did that, RIP MySpace.

That argument could be used against all regulation, yet, you people support plenty of regulation.

It is almost as though you are dismissing the issue under false pretenses, because you know what Big Tech is doing is wrong, but you support it BECAUSE it is wrong, but you are too cowardly to admit it.

No, it couldn't be used against all regulation Sherlock. Are you a Lawyer? Do you know how the Commerce Laws work? Of course you don't - you're a perpetually whiny conservative victim on a messageboard. And if I leave and come back in ten years, you'll be the same, but the whines will be different. Rinse/repeat.

I don't need to be a lawyer to see that your argument is an argument against the very concept of regulation, which, since you are not supporting NO regulation, means that it is not a serious argument.


You are just dismissing a point, you can't refute honestly and hoping you can fool people if you just keep repeating it over and over again.

You don't have a point.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, usmessageboard and any places like them are choices you make as an adult responsible for yourself. What you want is to mold a place you can freely choose to leave at any time into the way that you personally like it by using the force of the Government.

Conservative victimhood is disgusting to me.

You people want to "cancel" businesses or people based on the most flimsy of excuses, until you benefit from their actions. And then, all of a sudden, you have a respect for private property that would make Ayn Rand look like an anarchist.


It's hypocrisy raised to an artform, and it is not fooling ANYONE, not even yourself.


You know you are lying.

Your illogical whines have zero effect on Adult conversation.

A platform you're free to use or free to leave - whining about how they run their business instead of leaving is a you problem. It doesn't matter how many pretzels you'd like to twist yourself into to pass the buck of the whine onto anyone else.

Conservatism on messageboards has elucidated the ugliest parts of the brain-state - the whiny victimhood. It's disgusting.

Yes, you made that point already. And I addressed it repeatedly.


THe fact is that Big Tech is causing harm to society as a whole and to many individuals who have engaged in business with them in good faith.


You are putting your partisan advantage over the good of society and the rights of the individuals screwed over by Big Tech.

There's no conglomerate 'Big Tech.' It's what the Messaging from the top-down Conservative whiners has been. A buzz word, a new enemy you were told to have and your Victim mentality sucked it up and now repeats it, as was designed. Zuckerberg started in a Dorky little College dorm and now you're after his coat-tails and want to be a Victim instead of doing your own hard work, or participating in a platform elsewhere which there's plenty...you're just sad that they're not as successful or popular. Victim, victim, victim.

Funny, you just spent quite a bit of time arguing Big Tech has the right to do what they want with their sites, and suddenly you are realizing that they, ie Big Tech doesn't exist?

This coming from the guy that accused ME of having pretzel logic.


LOL!!!


Decide, lefty. Either they have the right to rule their sites in an unfair and arbitrary manner or they don't exist and the discrimination doesn't actually happen.


You don't get to hold both positions.


Is it ok if I call you Wally?


View attachment 424578

There, there Victim. Get it all off you on a messageboard every day instead of living real life. It's cathartic, I know. The civil war threads have been amazing...too...but like usual....JUST threads.