 
     |
| Banning of Conservatives on Social Media (Page 12/13) |
|
sourmash
|
JAN 20, 10:58 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
There were 2 lawsuits after the regulations were implemented that involved (allegedly) pornography.
One of the tenets of free speech is that everyone and anyone also has the right NOT to speak, and that is the tact Twitter, FB etc take.
|
|
Did you mean "tack"?
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JAN 20, 11:39 AM
|
|
Tack would work, but I actually meant to type tactic.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 20, 11:54 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.
Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.
You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.
Edit: autocorrect from my phone...
|
|
Twitter, et all, brought this on themselves by censoring or editing posts on their services.
If they do not edit or censor, they are entitled to Sec. 230 protection.
Their choice to push the limits.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
JAN 20, 12:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
* You placed no minimum or maximum limit or other quantitative measure on your statement. I'm on various other boards similar to PFF. A couple forbid any posting or discussion of any religious or political topics and issues. Any, without a limit, is all inclusive.
** The readers upon whom you (via the video) are attempting to push that particular narrative.
|
|
"To pressure the silencing of any dissent" To pressure into happening, the silencing of any dissent. Sure the end goal may be to leave some dissent, I couldn't confirm that. No not all dissent is currently being silenced. Yes I could have left the word "any" out.
Any comment on what he says is happening? The letter he mentions?
Yes there is no numerical value to the people who see a video, well, youtube has some analytics maybe...
This is information, its not incumbent upon me or the speaker to prove anything. If the person who hears doesnt care enough to do some research, or even just open their eyes, thats their own doing or undoing. Try and find out if the speaker is lying, see how he gets funding, etc. This is normal procedure when one hears information or watches "news".[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-20-2021).]
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JAN 20, 05:55 PM
|
|
You said 'any' dissent'.
There are tons of dissenting voices from the left that are heard on social media everyday, and still nearly as much from the right.
If the right wants social media (and other media as well) to stop the current undesirable moderation, they need to cease the proclamation of all these conspiracy theories that help lead to stupid acts.
The days of things like publicly stated "Somebody needs to kill that......." are gone and for good reason.
The GOP didn't lose the Presidency and Senate because of what social media deleted.
Lost, because the majority of the public did not believe much of what the right was saying on social media.
'deep state'
'lizardheads'
'The Plan'
'covid19 is under control, it's not real, it's just another flu, the numbers are hugely exaggerated''
That, is how much of the nation (and the world) sees the contemporary right.
Why?
Because that, is how the right has recently, LOUDLY and OFTEN presented itself thru the media and it's social counterpart and still is to only a slightly lesser degree today.
The DC debacle was just the culmination of a full year of the right shooting themselves in the foot.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JAN 20, 06:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
The DC debacle was just the culmination of a full year of the right shooting themselves in the foot.
|
|
And that irks me as much, if not more than anything the left has done. We are doing a terrible job of policing our own. If there is a crowd of a hundred people, and two are wearing swastikas, you know who is going to get noticed by the reporters and cameras.
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JAN 20, 06:44 PM
|
|
You got to admit, breaking into congress and several dead in the process is kind of hard to go un-noticed, no matter how many thousands were outside peacefully protesting within their constitutional authority.
I'm not sure when the last time it happened in this country, if ever.
The 1814 occupation and subsequent fire being the only big exception tho there were about 3 bombings over the years since then.
In 1915, as the United States asserted its neutrality during the early months of World War I, a German sympathizer detonated a bomb in the Senate Reception Room to protest America’s evident sympathies toward Great Britain. Again, in 1971 and 1983, protestors of American foreign policies set off explosives that caused significant damage to the Capitol.
The '71 bomb was placed in a Senate bathroom by weather underground members.
Of current interest,
On January 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of Evans and Rosenberg, 2 members of the resistance group that bombed the Senate in '83.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...ance_Conspiracy_case[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-20-2021).]
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 20, 06:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.
Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.
You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.
Edit: autocorrect from my phone...
|
|
And now Twitter is being sued in Canada by a Canadian who was defamed by another Twitter user. And Canada has no Section 230 for Twitter to hide behind.
https://publicfigure.com/fi...ously-suing-twitter/
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 20, 06:50 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Twitter, et all, brought this on themselves by censoring or editing posts on their services.
If they do not edit or censor, they are entitled to Sec. 230 protection.
Their choice to push the limits. |
|
That is the actual crux of the issue. Social Media cannot have it both ways, censoring certain speech while claiming they are just a platform like AT&T.
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
JAN 20, 06:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|