Ignoring this whole part because I don't think you have read what I said and are making assumptions. If you re-read, I state several times that companies can do what they want as private entities. 230 granted companies and people the right to freedom of speech. Meaning that companies (and people) can say things and companies cannot get fined for it. Freedom of Speech. Companies are treated as persons. 230 grants companies freedom of speech. I was saying it was ironic because they are using 230 as a cover to regulate other's speech. But if you read everything I've said above... I've already made it clear that all of us acknowledge that companies can do what they want.
I'm not sure if you're just wording it strangely, or what, but Section 230 means forums are not necessarily publishers/editors, so they should not be held to the content their users post. Getting rid of 230 would open the door for any company with a component of their site that allows for user-submitted text to be sued for the content their users submitted. So if I said something like "Todd has a big butt" and this wasn't true (and materially harmed you enough for a libel suit), then not only could you sue me, you could also sue Cliff (if he was based in the US). Maybe a bad example given all of the parentheses, but what Synthesis is saying in regards to changing the internet as we know it is true, because all of the companies with websites based in the U.S. would have to moderate all of their content or be subject to suits. In the end, Trump would have barely been able to tweet at all, because Twitter themselves would have been held liable for the content of his tweets.
I think that is the craziest thing to me about the whole 230 push from Trump. 230 has basically provided him with his platform. Without 230, he wouldn't have had nearly the reach to accomplish what he did.
Maybe we could replace it with something, I don't know if there is a better solution, but I certainly wouldn't want to just get rid of it. Maybe all of the websites would just transfer hosts to another country and all would be fine, but that seems like putting a nail on a coffin for American dominance in Tech.
I'm not sure if you're just wording it strangely, or what, but Section 230 means forums are not necessarily publishers/editors, so they should not be held to the content their users post. Getting rid of 230 would open the door for any company with a component of their site that allows for user-submitted text to be sued for the content their users submitted. So if I said something like "Todd has a big butt" and this wasn't true (and materially harmed you enough for a libel suit), then not only could you sue me, you could also sue Cliff (if he was based in the US). Maybe a bad example given all of the parentheses, but what Synthesis is saying in regards to changing the internet as we know it is true, because all of the companies with websites based in the U.S. would have to moderate all of their content or be subject to suits. In the end, Trump would have barely been able to tweet at all, because Twitter themselves would have been held liable for the content of his tweets.
I think that is the craziest thing to me about the whole 230 push from Trump. 230 has basically provided him with his platform. Without 230, he wouldn't have had nearly the reach to accomplish what he did.
Maybe we could replace it with something, I don't know if there is a better solution, but I certainly wouldn't want to just get rid of it. Maybe all of the websites would just transfer hosts to another country and all would be fine, but that seems like putting a nail on a coffin for American dominance in Tech.
I remember years ago one of the hot or not sites suddenly went off line. It was the one where you select one of two cars. Later it came out that the host didn't bother screening who they sold space to and were shut down due to adult files. Now they didn't just shut them down they took all of the servers and hardware that had data on it. I have no issues with that, there should be some liability. Its funny they shut Trump down but what he has been doing is mild compared to some of the **** I have seen. The first place I saw someone get their head cut off was on face book. I had to click to show but damn, if it was a nipple the account would have been shut down.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: A lot of things were conspiracy until they weren't, MJ. We are all entitled to our opinion... but a lot of conspiracy is rooted in some reality.
There are some things that are total nonsense... but other things that are not. It's a very dangerous position for you to take that you believe the Government has some kind of role in determining what conspiracies are legitimate and which ones are not.
Not really. The govt, thru their constitutional mandate to provide for the general welfare and common defense of it's citizens would have to assume almost all are legit until proven otherwise via investigation. The investigation would take various forms but govt has to assume a role in that process if they are to find out which are "rooted in reality" and which are 'total nonsense'.
While I certainly believe in the idiom that states "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. " I also don't believe we are yet at that point, tho the writer of those 2 lines (Jefferson) said much more about it in his letter and pretty much stated he disdained the prospect that even 20 years should pass without it (a citizen's insurrection) happening.
He also pointed out the citizen's ability (and conversely, the lack thereof) to be truthfully informed, something we should keep in mind. An excerpt:
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
The Massachusetts insurrection he was speaking of was what we know today as Shay's Rebellion which took place in 1786/1787. He was warning that kneejerk measures should NOT be legislated to the extreme because of a singular event. (A kite is a type of hawk and he was referring to having a govt overlord constantly circling around the new nation looking for 'trouble', when the overlord itself has the distinct possibility of being the real problem. A hawk will eat a chicken as quickly as it will a fur bearing predator)
We have seen this 'kite' numerous times in our lives, even within internet discussion boards, as well as in corporate America, our education systems, and now, from social media's big guns.
Parts of the internet, the news, and even congress has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Washington DC: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order.
Not really. The govt, thru their constitutional mandate to provide for the general welfare and common defense of it's citizens would have to assume almost all are legit until proven otherwise via investigation. The investigation would take various forms but govt has to assume a role in that process if they are to find out which are "rooted in reality" and which are 'total nonsense'.
You're going to LOVE Pee Pad's new government agency kite....
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-11-2021).]
I keep hearing around here they are a private company, they can do whatever they want...
How did that workout for the Christian baker from Colorado??
Seems L:EFTIST private companies can do what they want. Conservatives ones better to the liberal line or else.
Kind of like the abortion rhetoric. "My body my choice" doesnt seem to apply to forced vaccinations or co-erced now, does it ?
"Let them eat cake."
What "them" gets up to, even if it's some kind of LGBT (or WXYZ) kind of thing... well, they still have to be able to purchase their cake, Mr Christian Baker. Just like your other customers.
Providing (or not providing) a cake is one thing; incitement of insurrection (or seditious conspiracy) another thing entirely.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-12-2021).]
I owned stock in Apple, sold it off (it's been going down too now), and I also had an ETF that held Facebook, Twitter, and a few others. I sold that as well the day they did it.
I also blocked Twitter at my router. Not that I'm scared of seeing anything on Twitter, but I don't want to give them the opportunity to get hits from my IP when I go to news articles that quotes Twitter users.
Apparently they're getting thrashed right now... several European and South and Central American leaders have expressed outrage at Twitter and Facebook, with several considering potential legal action that will prevent Twitter from doing such things to any politicians in Europe.
Even the ACLU has made a comment stating that big tech needs to be put in check.
Trump has only ever been shed in a negative light by media and you will only ever see their coverage of their views. I never liked politics but your thoughts are controlled and you're programmed to think in a certain way as you only ever get a one sided story. I am not a supporter but if Donald helped anything it won't get a mention unless he brings it up. Change the channel it doesn't matter cancel culture is here and now you can end your freedom of speech. Starting at the top.
[This message has been edited by Australian (edited 01-13-2021).]
The govt, thru their constitutional mandate to provide for the general welfare and common defense of it's citizens would have to assume almost all are legit until proven otherwise via investigation. The investigation would take various forms but govt has to assume a role in that process if they are to find out which are "rooted in reality" and which are 'total nonsense'.
Do you believe that was done with all the election fraud claims?
Do you believe that was done with all the election fraud claims?
I've seen nothing but rhetoric and hyperbole to prove otherwise, but do note I said "almost all". Some the 'claims of election fraud" I read about were so far out in the middle of the weeds I doubt even the most ardent monitor would give them any credence 'from the git go'. That includes the Falun Gong claims.
I've seen nothing but rhetoric and hyperbole to prove otherwise, but do note I said "almost all". Some the 'claims of election fraud" I read about were so far out in the middle of the weeds I doubt even the most ardent monitor would give them any credence 'from the git go'. That includes the Falun Gong claims.
I don't know why or how you keep saying this. There have been dozens of arrests, they're just not really making the news because it goes against the narrative the media is trying to portray. One of them was a Republican, even one of them was outed by Project Veritas. The only thing that's fact is that the courts have been throwing out the cases without even seeing the evidence... it's not about law, it's about risk mitigation. No one wanted to be responsible for potentially overturning an election. Hopefully they'll take it a bit more seriously after inauguration.
I've seen nothing but rhetoric and hyperbole to prove otherwise, but do note I said "almost all". Some the 'claims of election fraud" I read about were so far out in the middle of the weeds I doubt even the most ardent monitor would give them any credence 'from the git go'. That includes the Falun Gong claims.
Well I'm from the state where over 6000 votes were switched to Biden from Trump in one rural county, so I don't necessarlly share that sentiment...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The only thing that's fact is that the courts have been throwing out the cases without even seeing the evidence...
The DBub has said on this forum that it has been demonstrably been proven false. Google it.
Well I'm from the state where over 6000 votes were switched to Biden from Trump in one rural county, so I don't necessarlly share that sentiment...
It's this kind of thing I keep hearing about, but nothing meat and potatoes to go along with it ever seems to surface..
'Who' switched them? (names please and official title if it's known) How and/or when did you learn of 'the switch' and from whom? "How" was it done? Details would be great. "When" was the switch actually done? How many people knew about 'the switch" as it was being done? "Who" (names/titles) ordered or authorized 'the switch'?
Was it corrected once "the switch" was detected? How did the 'switcher' plead when charged with whatever state or county crime was applicable?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-13-2021).]
Hillary will never be charged, so that's how things are done sometimes. She committed a felony even if it was negligence according to the code. But removing classified info and walking it to her private unsecured server offsite wasnt allowed. Letting friends and Weiner's possession of it isn't allowed either.
Everyone knows she absolutely did it but the FBI won't prosecute.
It's this kind of thing I keep hearing about, but nothing meat and potatoes to go along with it ever seems to surface..
'Who' switched them? (names please and official title if it's known) How and/or when did you learn of 'the switch' and from whom? "How" was it done? Details would be great. "When" was the switch actually done? How many people knew about 'the switch" as it was being done? "Who" (names/titles) ordered or authorized 'the switch'?
Was it corrected once "the switch" was detected? How did the 'switcher' plead when charged with whatever state or county crime was applicable?
Dawson Buchanan, a young Trump-supporter, left a disturbing thread on Twitter. He asserts that he was all set to begin working for a company called Private Jet Services. However, shortly before he was to begin, PJS fired him. He finally learned from the owner that PJS had a contract with the National Hockey League. When the NHL learned that PJS had hired someone who had worked for the Trump company, the NHL said PJS had a choice: Buchanan or the NHL. PJS opted for the company that helps pay its bills.
Liberals, run by Pelosi, Schumer and Nadar...with puppet Biden, are going to throw away the Constitution. That started with tossing free speech. Others soon to follow. This will be the Communist States of America in short order. Illegals will get every right and benefit citizens do. They already got free schooling, medical care and US Stimulus checks. Im sure theyre on the road to Social Security also.
The private-sector purge is beginning [QUOTE]Dawson Buchanan, a young Trump-supporter, left a disturbing thread on Twitter. He asserts that he was all set to begin working for a company called Private Jet Services. However, shortly before he was to begin, PJS fired him. He finally learned from the owner that PJS had a contract with the National Hockey League. When the NHL learned that PJS had hired someone who had worked for the Trump company, the NHL said PJS had a choice: Buchanan or the NHL. PJS opted for the company that helps pay its bills.
Questionable at best.
quote
The NHL and the Carolina Hurricanes deny that they pressured a private airline company to fire a former campaign staffer for President Donald Trump.
Dawson Buchanan, a travel coordinator for Trump's reelection campaign, claimed in a Twitter thread on Tuesday that he was fired by Private Jet Services when "the NHL found out I worked for the Trump campaign and threatened to cancel the contract with PJS unless they fired me."
Buchanan said he was going to be a travel concierge with the Carolina Hurricanes, a client of Private Jet Services.
"Instead of standing up for me, instead of explaining to the NHL that I, as a person, am not solely defined by my previous work on the Trump campaign, they fired me for their own company's financial gain," said Buchanan, who had used his social media to support overturning the 2020 presidential election results and said he attended the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol.
When asked about Buchanan's allegations, an NHL spokesperson told ESPN that they were "categorically untrue" and that "until this news broke, we had never heard of him."
"The Carolina Hurricanes rely on PJS to hire staff for our air travel," the team said in a statement. "Until Mr. Buchanan's social media posts Tuesday night, the Hurricanes knew nothing about him. We will not be commenting further."
According to an executive at Private Jet Services, "Mr. Buchanan was never an employee of our company, ever, at any time" and "the story was a complete fabrication."
The executive confirmed that the company had worked with Buchanan when he was an operations associate for Trump campaign headquarters and had explored the possibility of hiring him as a plane concierge. But he said that the training for such a position is monthslong and thus the timeline wouldn't have worked out to bring Buchanan on for the start of the season.
In an email to ESPN, Buchanan provided images of what he claimed was a PJS-issued laptop and text message correspondence with the company that included plans for his work with the Hurricanes.
Buchanan claims that Private Jet Services CEO Greg Raiff indicated that a former employee of the company, who worked with the Hurricanes last season, "sent a screenshot of my LinkedIn to the team, and then the team subsequently reached out to [Raiff] requesting my dismissal from the company." Buchanan also claims that Raiff called him after the Twitter thread to say he would "completely deny the entire allegation, regardless of its legitimacy."
Buchanan said that further evidence of his employment with the company was made unavailable when he was locked out of his corporate email account.
I may have posted in haste. I was still working on coffee and didn't take the time to research the story. That is something for which I occasionally admonish others.
If not disagreeing with his claims, commenting on them, or giving your opinion....pick apart his presentation if you want, maybe the woodstove is offensive.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-14-2021).]
