Yeah, this thread has been informative about the 1st amendment, section 230, and so on, but it says nothing about the disparate application of the standards. No one on here is arguing that standards should not exist. And I don't recall seeing anything about whether they are appropriate. The disagreement, which is significant, deals with the agendas of those companies and their impact on the enforcement of those standards.
That would seem to be as a result of your apparent lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Here is the thing at least how I see it---I'm not driven by emotion as much as many...at least I hope not. I grew up in a time that the understanding was that "sticks and stones may break bones, but words would never hurt you". Outside of mental retardiation I'm not sure that "words" actually drive anyone to do something. Switching majors and getting out in time I ended up taking a mass media communications course to satisfy some elective since it was offered in the summer. The issue that was "hot" at the time was violence in TV. After some surveys in the area and some research it appeared that violence would not affect someone with stability, but "could" if someone had mental issues. Now that was over 4 decades ago, but the issue was the same with the medium being different. I find this retread of previous failures also in pedagogy with a new name.
Parlor was asked to implement moderation rules.
I voted libertarian in 2020, so hardly a "Trumper" as you say.
The thread started on KHC and got moved (for good reason).
Brian moved it here because he didn’t appreciate all the attention and debate it was receiving. Fall in line for Brian...
That's Marsh vs. Alabama. I would suggest that the very obvious distinguishing factor is that the usage and activities within the town were open to the public as a whole and not to those who entered into any written agreements indicating that their use of the town was not a public right but a private usage of the business's property as opposed to Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. There would be a legitimate analogy to Marsh if the platforms merely made themselves available without the need to sign off on their agreement as to terms of use.
Correct. There are groups that participate in riots that burned police stations (government buildings) or took over public/private spaces by force that are not only allowed to have these platforms but are celebrated by big tech and allowed to fund raise on these platforms. To me this is also sedition and a coup on the lawfully elected government. You can donate to a group that is involved with with the ongoing destruction of a Federal courthouse in Portland, but if you are a conservative interest you have a good chance that GoFundMe shuts you down.
Hillary Clinton tweeting about the peaceful transition of power might be one of the most irony-laden things I’ve seen in a 200 post thread full of them.
I am not arguing for Parlor. I am pointing out the hypocrisy and croc tears of people like you. If a group uses social media to incite looting and burn down government buildings then they should be banned? Yeah, I'll support that. But you don't. As i have documented Google's you tube host content from Louis Farrakhan. Not another company using google phones or search engines. Google themselves.
so if a group uses social media to promote an "event" that resulted in the injury or death of a police officer you agree they should be banned from social media and rightfully named and called out?
lost all his links ... didn’t you hear? Parler is down. (Tic)
Sure, have at it. Unfortunately, I do not control Twitter so not sure what you'd like me to do about it. What's the tick toc, tick toc part about? Were you under the impression that I would run scared from you providing evidence of random people who incited something that led to cops being killed "execution style?"
Yes, it would. I'm about 50/50 libertarian and conservative. Libertarian beliefs against a government with too much power also extends to private companies with too much power. The money and influence of Apple and Google make them a threat to freedom and liberty almost on par with the government. And there's considerably more oversight of the government than those two companies.
Except that's not what happened. They offered to make them a cake, just not decorate it the way they wanted. I'm sure the nuance escapes you since you're obviously spoon fed by liberal media.
They all have TOS that customers need to follow.
I won’t say conservatives, but Trumpians have become a more dangerous threat to the US than the Ayatollah. I just watched them invade our capital.
You need to go read Orwell again. It’s a lot closer to what Trump was trying to pull off.
And again — this is the system that Trump’s FCC wanted.
FYI, they have been watching the Ayatollah’s account lately too. Nice to see he’s treated like Trump.
Twitter removes ‘misleading’ tweet from Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei
Twitter moved to block a tweet from Iran’s Supreme Leader after he cast doubt on the efficacy of the coronavirus vaccines and called US- and UK-made vaccines “completely untrustworthy&#…nypost.com
I don't support that and threats of violence are rightly regarded as illegal. The idiots who stormed the capitol this week are the furthest thing from patriots and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law..
