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.
Ha! The law is on my side. You’re attempting to make a distinction that doesn’t exist in law. No internet company is considered the speaker of content provided by users regardless of their policies on content removal.This is a point you will have to make a hundred times before it's realized that Colfax just doesn't give a shit.When they claimed they are disseminator of content and immune to lawsuits. This is the crux of this whole thing.
He will repeat a lie over and over and over again.
You do if it is a public platform and you are posting within the rules.I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it.Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.
Imagine that.
If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarin over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.
The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.
Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.
You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.
But isn’t that like the burger joint owner who won’t serve you because he does not approve of your haircut?Nope! The first amendment does not apply to private companies.In theory I do IF that website claims to be a publisher and not a content creator.You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.
Why, say! Isn't that Zuckerberg say Facebook is?
Where does he get the authority to remove posts that finds problematic (assuming such posts are not
violent, threatening, etc.)?
Zuckerberg gets the authority to remove posts when he pays the money to maintain the servers that the post is hosted on.
His server. His rules.
As I showed you, the terms of service say they can censor anything they want for any reason they want. They are within their rights by the TOS to do so.You do if it is a public platform and you are posting within the rules.I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it.Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.
Imagine that.
If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarin over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.
The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.
Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.
You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.
They do not have the right to censor you when you are within the terms of service...which the big platforms do engage in...see YouTube,FB and Twitter.
Public accommodation laws applying to burger joints don’t apply to websites.But isn’t that like to burger joint owner who won’t serve you because he does not approve of your haircut?Nope! The first amendment does not apply to private companies.In theory I do IF that website claims to be a publisher and not a content creator.You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.
Why, say! Isn't that Zuckerberg say Facebook is?
Where does he get the authority to remove posts that finds problematic (assuming such posts are not
violent, threatening, etc.)?
Zuckerberg gets the authority to remove posts when he pays the money to maintain the servers that the post is hosted on.
His server. His rules.
Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lieI don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.
He is a troll.I don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.This is a point you will have to make a hundred times before it's realized that Colfax just doesn't give a shit.When they claimed they are disseminator of content and immune to lawsuits. This is the crux of this whole thing.
He will repeat a lie over and over and over again.
So I must be accommodated regarding appearance (a form of expression) but don’t have to be accommodated on expression of the written word?Public accommodation laws applying to burger joints don’t apply to websites.But isn’t that like to burger joint owner who won’t serve you because he does not approve of your haircut?Nope! The first amendment does not apply to private companies.In theory I do IF that website claims to be a publisher and not a content creator.You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.
Why, say! Isn't that Zuckerberg say Facebook is?
Where does he get the authority to remove posts that finds problematic (assuming such posts are not
violent, threatening, etc.)?
Zuckerberg gets the authority to remove posts when he pays the money to maintain the servers that the post is hosted on.
His server. His rules.
Okay. So when did Zuckerberg retract his claim that Facebook is NOT a content creator?As I showed you, the terms of service say they can censor anything they want for any reason they want. They are within their rights by the TOS to do so.
Then they waive their section 230 protections.As I showed you, the terms of service say they can censor anything they want for any reason they want. They are within their rights by the TOS to do so.You do if it is a public platform and you are posting within the rules.I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it.Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.
Imagine that.
If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarin over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.
The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.
Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.
You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.
They do not have the right to censor you when you are within the terms of service...which the big platforms do engage in...see YouTube,FB and Twitter.
He's a half bright a-hole.He is a troll.
Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lieI don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.
Then they waive their section 230 protections.As I showed you, the terms of service say they can censor anything they want for any reason they want. They are within their rights by the TOS to do so.You do if it is a public platform and you are posting within the rules.I'm a fan of the Bill of Rights. And leftists as usual are fans of Chinese style authoritarianism because their message can be sent out and no one can mess with it.Conservatives are now fans of the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine that.
Imagine that.
If you are for the 2nd Amendment or limits on abortion, boom...you are expelled.
If you think the Covid pandemic has been largely an exercise in authoritarin over reach.....boom, you are out!
If you believe our voting system must not be manipulated or breached boom....you will be silenced.
The Bill of Rights says you may say all these things. The Tech Giants at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
say not so fast. Your "hate speech" must not be allowed to flourish.
Sounds Xi Jinping's China, doesn't it.
You don’t have a first amendment right to post anything on a private website.
They do not have the right to censor you when you are within the terms of service...which the big platforms do engage in...see YouTube,FB and Twitter.
Zuckerberg claimed FB is both and that Section 230 needed to be amended to account for such.Okay. So when did Zuckerberg retract his claim that Facebook is NOT a content creator?As I showed you, the terms of service say they can censor anything they want for any reason they want. They are within their rights by the TOS to do so.
I missed that bit of news.
How can there be precedent when Twitter was founded 10 yrs after the law was passed?Why can't it be both? Someone who continuously repeats an argument that has it's entire basis in a lieI don't follow why he cannot comprehend this. He is either trolling or stupid.
is both a troll and stupid for supporting a blatant lie.
And yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.
Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.
So why not establish your claim in fact by citing an authoritative and knowledgeable source that backs youAnd yet the law and legal precedent are all on my side.
Im not trolling. I’m just saying something you don’t want to be true.
Well that's his claim, isn't it?Zuckerberg claimed FB is both and that Section 230 needed to be amended to account for such.
Well if so, he's just stating a wish with no backing in law.Zuckerberg claimed FB is both and that Section 230 needed to be amended to account for such.
