Ted Cruz SHREDS Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO

This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


Ted better hope Trump wins, or unfortunately for him and Texas, he is just warming the seat for the future, global socialist Dem.

Yeah, well, it looks more and more like if Biden wins, our country as we know it simply won't exist in four years, so he's screwed whether he tries to play it the safe, cowardly way or he mans up and tries to fight it.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.

You know if the loose 230 protection they would not only take him off but would probably have to ban the NY Post for over a year...

They would also ban Cruz for supporting the this lie... They could sued and the prosecutor could say that having someone as unstable as Cruz who proposes a story that is has no real evidence and is obviously a fabrication...

You know, if they "loose" 230 protection, they COULD just regain it by putting an end to their high-handed, elitist censorship and behaving as an open platform the way they said they would.

Not that such a concept would ever occur to a leftist twerp who enjoys having "his betters" tell him the "correct" thoughts to have.

Communist China would disapprove and not be pleased.

Thank you. I'm glad to hear that I have achieved my goal.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.

You know if the loose 230 protection they would not only take him off but would probably have to ban the NY Post for over a year...

They would also ban Cruz for supporting the this lie... They could sued and the prosecutor could say that having someone as unstable as Cruz who proposes a story that is has no real evidence and is obviously a fabrication...
Section 230 was never intended to grant special immunity to big tech to censor anything and anyone they don’t like. Congress should not continue to subsidize, deputize, or blackmail Silicon Valley to decide what is or isn’t an allowable conversation.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.

I watched Jack Dorsey's Body language and he was lying about 60-70% of the time. The only time I thought he really told the truth is when he said they needed more transparency.

Dorsey told Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb) that he is interested in more transparency, and that they are working on a system where users can either choose or turn off the algorithms that drive content.

Yeah, right. If you were "interested in more transparency", you would just quit censoring content. You're the fucking boss; no one's stopping you.


They are already transparent
They don't hide their love, hate or bias.
It's right there for all the world to see.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.

You know if the loose 230 protection they would not only take him off but would probably have to ban the NY Post for over a year...

They would also ban Cruz for supporting the this lie... They could sued and the prosecutor could say that having someone as unstable as Cruz who proposes a story that is has no real evidence and is obviously a fabrication...
Section 230 was never intended to grant special immunity to big tech to censor anything and anyone they don’t like. Congress should not continue to subsidize, deputize, or blackmail Silicon Valley to decide what is or isn’t an allowable conversation.

Ironically, Section 230 was intended to grant immunity to online platforms for NOT censoring.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.

You know if the loose 230 protection they would not only take him off but would probably have to ban the NY Post for over a year...

They would also ban Cruz for supporting the this lie... They could sued and the prosecutor could say that having someone as unstable as Cruz who proposes a story that is has no real evidence and is obviously a fabrication...
Section 230 was never intended to grant special immunity to big tech to censor anything and anyone they don’t like. Congress should not continue to subsidize, deputize, or blackmail Silicon Valley to decide what is or isn’t an allowable conversation.

Ironically, Section 230 was intended to grant immunity to online platforms for NOT censoring.


Yep
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time
When they have a government-assisted monopoly and are using that monopoly in a clearly partisan way to change the outcome of an election, it is definitely deserves some questioning, don't you think?

Or are you okay with Texas energy giants forcing government-backed domestic consumption priorities, then charging Californians and New Yorkers 10x everyone else?
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time
When they have a government-assisted monopoly and are using that monopoly in a clearly partisan way to change the outcome of an election, it is definitely deserves some questioning, don't you think?

Or are you okay with Texas energy giants forcing government-backed domestic consumption priorities, then charging Californians and New Yorkers 10x everyone else?

Stop saying that

Those "monopoly" powers are given to every website on the web, including this one and any you might make

The alternative is youtube is filled with porn and snuff videos because they can't moderate. Or they ahve to be 100% curated with no user content. And the whole internet collapses.

Any other business or media organization on the planet can take advantage of those same exact rules. THere is nothing monopolistic about it

They may partake in monopoly practices, but they are not state backed nor do they have special carve outs
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time

Do you not know what a platform is?
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time
When they have a government-assisted monopoly and are using that monopoly in a clearly partisan way to change the outcome of an election, it is definitely deserves some questioning, don't you think?

Or are you okay with Texas energy giants forcing government-backed domestic consumption priorities, then charging Californians and New Yorkers 10x everyone else?

Stop saying that

Those "monopoly" powers are given to every website on the web, including this one and any you might make

The alternative is youtube is filled with porn and snuff videos because they can't moderate. Or they ahve to be 100% curated with no user content. And the whole internet collapses.

Any other business or media organization on the planet can take advantage of those same exact rules. THere is nothing monopolistic about it

They may partake in monopoly practices, but they are not state backed nor do they have special carve outs
My understanding of their 230 protections is that if they censor content for specific reasons, they will not be treated as a publisher for defamation/privacy litigation purposes. These guys have clearly gone well beyond those specific censoring carve-outs.

Regardless, their have behaved in a way that appears to be making political contributions worth millions.

All I am saying is that they at least should answer some questions, should they not?
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time

You dont know anything about 230, do you?

Is Verizon responsible if someone receives a death threat through their PLATFORM? No, and they do not censor phone calls.

The New York Times can be sued for content, and they censor what they PUBLISH.

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND THEN REJOIN THE DISCUSSION.

Here is the law itself


Here is a discussion about it.


Now take the next step, educate yourself, and rejoin the grown ups.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time
When they have a government-assisted monopoly and are using that monopoly in a clearly partisan way to change the outcome of an election, it is definitely deserves some questioning, don't you think?

Or are you okay with Texas energy giants forcing government-backed domestic consumption priorities, then charging Californians and New Yorkers 10x everyone else?

Stop saying that

Those "monopoly" powers are given to every website on the web, including this one and any you might make

The alternative is youtube is filled with porn and snuff videos because they can't moderate. Or they ahve to be 100% curated with no user content. And the whole internet collapses.

Any other business or media organization on the planet can take advantage of those same exact rules. THere is nothing monopolistic about it

They may partake in monopoly practices, but they are not state backed nor do they have special carve outs

They of course have a special carve out.
That's what the entire conversation is about.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time

Do you not know what a platform is?

You mean jack dorsey's business? Is that what you're referring to? lol

just because it grew huge doesn't mean the state has an inherent claim to it.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time
When they have a government-assisted monopoly and are using that monopoly in a clearly partisan way to change the outcome of an election, it is definitely deserves some questioning, don't you think?

Or are you okay with Texas energy giants forcing government-backed domestic consumption priorities, then charging Californians and New Yorkers 10x everyone else?

Stop saying that

Those "monopoly" powers are given to every website on the web, including this one and any you might make

The alternative is youtube is filled with porn and snuff videos because they can't moderate. Or they ahve to be 100% curated with no user content. And the whole internet collapses.

Any other business or media organization on the planet can take advantage of those same exact rules. THere is nothing monopolistic about it

They may partake in monopoly practices, but they are not state backed nor do they have special carve outs

They of course have a special carve out.
That's what the entire conversation is about.

No it's not

Again everyone has that "carve out"

It's nto special

I can take advantage of it the same as twitter, do you not know what a carve out is? A carve out is not universally applied to everyone lol, that's just a rule we all funciton under. Including this site.
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time

Do you not know what a platform is?

I bet the thinks Trump claimed COYOTES bring people across the border. And calls Trump a moron for saying an animal brings people actiss the border.

Wile_e_coyote_by_fagian-d2ykt4e.png

Human trafficker according to juicin
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time

You dont know anything about 230, do you?

Is Verizon responsible if someone receives a death threat through their PLATFORM? No, and they do not censor phone calls.

The New York Times can be sued for content, and they censor what they PUBLISH.

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND THEN REJOIN THE DISCUSSION.

Here is the law itself


Here is a discussion about it.


Now take the next step, educate yourself, and rejoin the grown ups.

Yes section 230 is not monopolistic

It applies to everyone

Verizon is a common carrier, not comparable.

They get state mandated frequencies for cell networks, and for ISPs they get copper. Broadcast TV and radio also get frequencies. Which is why they are regulated under different standards.

Twitter has servers on private property that's it

DId you really think i didn't know what section 230 was? lol

Seems pretty clear most of you don't understand. There are only two options if you want to take away section 230 like protections. Curate or free for all. Then you can try to claim you're not a publisher because you don't moderate. But more than likely you'd destroy most of the internet

They are not common carriers because they don't control anything we would consider public....Like tv broadcast channels or subsidized phone lines put on public land
 
This is epic. Ted is spot on. I challenge anyone to dispute where Ted is factually not accurate. These Tech giants need to lose 230 protections immediately.


So ted cruz king of the market is confused why a corporation would think it was within their rights to dictate what is and is not shown on their platform? lol

the guys wife is in wall street if memory serves. works for goldman sachs.

Maybe don't use him next time

Do you not know what a platform is?

You mean jack dorsey's business? Is that what you're referring to? lol

just because it grew huge doesn't mean the state has an inherent claim to it.

So, you don't know.
Take the others advice
Educate yourself a little
 

Forum List

Back
Top