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.
If there were 21st century Nazis, they would be the ones using government to force social media companies to bend to their will through threats of force.This is the sort of Nazi that government school turns out by the ton.
Not if it’s based on conduct. Go into a bar and trash talk trying to start a fight and you’ll be booted.Discrimination is not allowed in bars.
If there were 21st century Nazis, they would be the ones using government to force social media companies to bend to their will through threats of force.
Actually there are 21st century’s Nazis and for some reason Republicans are passing laws forcing social media companies to disseminate their hatred. I guess they’re kindred spirits.
Strange world we live in.
There is no discrimination in our hypothetical bar until someone starts shit. They got to come in and order a drink and say anything they wanted right up to the point they stop following the rules of the establishment.Discrimination is not allowed in bars.
Obtuse much? Now The People's OPINIONS are deemed "dangerous content"?The owners of the platforms have a legal and ethical responsibility as corporations to see that their operation is not harmful to the public. These corporations can be held responsible for dangerous content in the same way a bar owner can be held responsible for what goes on in their place of business.
Obtuse much? Now The People's OPINIONS are deemed "dangerous content"?
Where are these "legal and ethical responsibilities" defined?
Are social media outlets platforms or publishers?
If you can't carry on right wing politics without dangerous lies and incitement to violence that's a problem with you. These platforms make the rules and are responsible for their content. If you don't like it you do not have to be there.Obtuse much? Now The People's OPINIONS are deemed "dangerous content"?
Where are these "legal and ethical responsibilities" defined?
Are social media outlets platforms or publishers?
That's flat-out PROJECTION!If you can't carry on right wing politics without dangerous lies and incitement to violence that's a problem with you. These platforms make the rules and are responsible for their content. If you don't like it you do not have to be there.
You can be thrown off this board for breaking the rules. They will delete posts containing threats, racist white supremacy, scams or dangerous medical quackery just like any place else.That's flat-out PROJECTION!
And fuck those "platforms", I don't use them at all. This place is the only "platform" I post to online.
There's no feigning of the "dangers" of free speech here, why can't it be that way on Twitter or FB?
when the demafasict use private companies as their agents it appliesIt is an injunction against congress making laws restricting speech, protests, freedom of association or establishing a state religion. I've already covered that in this thread. All these were considered natural rights we already possessed by the founders. Now, show the class where posting on a social media platform can be considered a natural right?
Not a very intelligent sounding response.Try to get that Democrat boot polish off your tongue, buffoon.
I was just about to say the same thing.maybe read some case law on this
www.cbsnews.com
Not a very intelligent sounding response.
Maybe you should stick to your echo chambers as opposed to a discussion forum. Not everyone is cut out for this.
Posting that Huner's lap-top from HELL isn't Russian propaganda, that the whole Russia Russia Russia witch hunt against Trump was all sourced from Hillary's bought and paid for dirty dossier will get you banned on those other "platforms".You can be thrown off this board for breaking the rules. They will delete posts containing threats, racist white supremacy, scams or dangerous medical quackery just like any place else.
Sorry I threaten your safe space.Beat it, Nazi.
not sure what that has to do with my pointI was just about to say the same thing.
Judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against Twitter
The former president, joined by five other plaintiffs, sued Twitter in July 2021, months after the social media giant permanently banned him from the platform.
It’s been tried and failed miserably.
Trump’s lawsuit made the same claim you are and it failed miserably.not sure what that has to do with my point
Maybe you should. Any ruling that could force social media to reverse their moderation decisions would set a precedent that businesses do not have the right to refuse to do business with people that are hurting their business.when the demafasict use private companies as their agents it applies
maybe read some case law on this
The problem is that the government is not FORCING anythingIt's obviously unconstitutional for the government to tell media companies who to censor. But it's not unconstitutional for media companies to censor on their own.
The problem is that most of the idiots in this thread don't understand that distinction.
On the right, Trumpsters are just mad because Twitter was mean to them and they want revenge. In their ignorant zeal, they're ready throw out free speech in the name of winning the culture war.
And the left is so terrified of the cultural backlash (cultural backlash they created and continue to provoke), that they're willing to throw away free speech to squash it. Again, all in the name of winning the culture war.
We need to realize that using government to force our cultural preferences on others is just as dangerous, and just as wrong, as using government to force our religious preferences on others. It's an abuse of the power of the state and should not be tolerated.
