Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RedZone

....trump gonna shut twitter down?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, RedZone said:

It's been a rough 2 days for this RZ character.

The guy or girl has officially lost it, over social distancing and melting down over trump.

SOCIntellectual property has been no help....And that NEWBIE guy DownSouth who was gonna make Troll a scared,  was a NO-SHOW....

awe shit Man. 

giphy.gif

FIFY....

And cheer up....

...you can always just throw away that Id of yours and get another....👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Troll said:

Posting well on point today...+1

just two comments.....

1) LOTS of people are fed up with social media's "lack of standard rules or enforcement"....

Not just T.....

But we know how y'all like to bang that drum....

giphy.gif

😝

 

and 2) Hook that CB on a linear and blow everyone's squelch button right off their sets 🤣

I promise you, I'm as for freedom of speech as anyone. I do also think platforms share some liability in what they're allowing and how they're enforcing it. It's a difficult task because if humans are involved directly, there will be some bias. No way around it. Even in algos, humans will be programming them, so, then their biases are potentially programmed in. 

Like I said before, there is simply no right answer. 

The bigger the platform, the further the reach, the more scrutiny there likely needs to be on the platform applied as equally as possible. Then we start running into issues where each country potentially has their own rules toward these freedoms, protections, scrutinies, so potentially a company can just relocate their servers and operations to "change" the rules they're operating under. 

Lots of moving parts. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did once have a base cb that I could direct the output enough to light a light bulb with signal output. Believe it or not, they can track that bad boy right to you if you "overuse" it. They have a meter that will lead them right to your barn where they will promptly unplug you. I found that out on my own. Haha.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I did once have a base cb that I could direct the output enough to light a light bulb with signal output. Believe it or not, they can track that bad boy right to you if you "overuse" it. They have a meter that will lead them right to your barn where they will promptly unplug you. I found that out on my own. Haha.

Well it's not like you are BROADCASTING IT or anything ....🤣

We never needed that much range...Seaside is only an island of a couple miles, and when the whole crew was out cruising, everyone was usually in range.....and truth be told I think the PA horns got more use on the ocean ave strip...LOL

PS: When social media came out I laughed for years.....we had this shit with full audio 50 years ago 🤣 

 

This was prior to Cellphones for those younger folk BTW...haha

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, Troll said:

Sooooooooo.....finally dropping your whole "they didn't change nuttin" stance,

and stepping to the plate with your Patented....

.....Psychic Powers !!! 😆

giphy.gif

 

Now how does someone who can't add, and doesn't know what 'censorship' is....

manage to accomplish that?!?

giphy.gif

 

🤣

 

   

No dummy,  I said they didn’t censor him,  if you’re going to quote do it correctly and not pull from yours ass.  You’re the one that went from censorship to twitter being accused of “Scarlett letters and hot branding”.  😂 
 
His tweets are still there ...  Oh what a travesty 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

I can’t believe there’s a debate on whether the President should be allowed to freely spread misinformation and falsehoods on certain platforms. The depths these clowns will go to avert the truth

 

Still, it’s even more hilarious to see right wing blowhards defend what they’d usually call socialist behavior, like  the government shutting down social media because it’s not furthering their agenda. Sounds a lot like ‘Jina’

 

 

That’s just dumb troll, the guys a flaming idiot.  He’s entertaining as his opinions will never influence anything or anyone.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

No dummy,  I said they didn’t censor him,  if you’re going to quote do it correctly and not pull from yours ass
 

Quote you directly?  Sure Thing 👍...

 

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

Under this scenario trump...blah blah.  Not sure this is what he’s after. 

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

He literally gets to post BS ...Blah blah  what he wants is  blah blah.  

So which is it ???

Psychic powers working .....or not ?

giphy.gif

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

That’s just dumb troll, the guys a flaming idiot.  He’s entertaining as his opinions will never influence anything or anyone.  

The kiddie table is that way 👉.....

Try keeping that dunce cap from covering your eyes,

and you can probably find your way back 👌

 

....or just try using your psychic powers 😝

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Troll said:

Quote you directly?  Sure Thing 👍...

 

So which is it ???

Psychic powers working .....or not ?

giphy.gif

 

 

Yes, a lie Or misinformation is BS troll it’s not that hard.  So now you really want to argue on the truthfulness of his posts?  😂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Troll said:

The kiddie table is that way 👉.....

Try keeping that dunce cap from covering your eyes,

and you can probably find your way back 👌

 

....or just try using your psychic powers 😝

The consensus is you’re an idiot.  The only tool walking around thinking otherwise is you...what you see reflected back in the mirror is not what you are in reality, tinfoil man.  😂 

So troll,  what violation is breached by twitter “hot branding” trump?  😂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Yes, a lie Or misinformation is BS troll it’s not that hard.  So now you really want to argue on the truthfulness of his posts?  😂 

That must be a NO on those psychic powers .....

Sorry but "truthfulness" has never been some pre-requisit for free speech...and while that does not mean that you may slander others with untruths...people do have their own versions and own opinions, they are able to speak....regardless of whether you believe them 'true' or not.......DUH!

but you couldn't add that one up could you?

11 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

The consensus is you’re an idiot.  The only tool walking around thinking otherwise is you...what you see reflected back in the mirror is not what you are in reality, tinfoil man.  😂 

Think what you like....your psychic powers are not working well...😝

If "YOU BELIEVE" it untrue, you find solace in censoring it....

good for you.....👌

Glad we have a constitution 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Troll said:

That must be a NO on those psychic powers .....

Sorry but "truthfulness" has never been some pre-requisit for free speech...and while that does not mean that you may slander others with untruths...people do have their own versions and own opinions, they are able to speak....regardless of whether you believe them 'true' or not.......DUH!

but you couldn't add that one up could you?

Think what you like....your psychic powers are not working well...😝

If "YOU BELIEVE" it untrue, you find solace in censoring it....

good for you.....👌

Glad we have a constitution 👍

You don’t have to be a psychic to truth fact a statement.  Nonetheless dummy, they didn’t censor nor delete his comment.  

so back to the discussion and full circle, they didn’t censor his comments, but linked facts to what he was claiming.  Does linking counter statements mean the reader has to accept them as fact?  The answer is “no”. It’s amazing how DJT is threatened by people having access to info.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

That’s just dumb troll, the guys a flaming idiot.  He’s entertaining as his opinions will never influence anything or anyone.  

I seem to recall this clown pretending to be independent at one point.

 

He’s clearly  gone full Trumptard

 

They just can’t help but to expose themselves

 

Troll fasho

 

i can only imagine who this REALLY is🧐

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SOCIntellectualProperty said:

I seem to recall this clown pretending to be independent at one point. <<so what makes the clown think I am not?

 

He’s clearly  gone full Trumptard<<I Don't even know what he tweeted 🤣 that Y'all are so panty twisted about ...(and really don't care)...But just because you eat T's shit every morning for breakfast 😆

 

They just can’t help but to expose themselves<< So in your world which side does believing you are either a "public entity OR NOT" belong on... the right or left ???

 

Troll fasho<<👍

 

i can only imagine who this REALLY is🧐<<<Pipe dreams ???

not so "intellectual" ......are you 😝

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

You don’t have to be a psychic to truth fact a statement. <<No but that is still called a modification...Dunce cap DUH!  Nonetheless I'm a dummy, because I refuse to believe that selectively modifying content doesn't exist unless they scramble or delete the content.<<<FIFY 

 

Still stepping on your own dick I see... 👀

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Troll said:

Still stepping on your own dick I see... 👀

you didn’t read the tweets and a link is not a modification, as the tweet and it’s message content was intact. The reader is still fully able to read and reject the tweets in part or whole as the poster intended. 
 

try again jackass ... 
   
 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I'm kind of torn on this. While some of us know and understand that DJT's opinion is potentially wrong, and certainly isn't backed up by any major evidence, is it right to censor what he is saying. 

I don't agree that Twitter adding a fact check link is censorship. He was allowed to say whatever he wanted to. Hence he wasn't censored at all. 

Now, if we want to debate whether editing his tweet to add the link was wrong or not, then I feel like we are getting somewhere. 

People will have a lot of differing views on this, most will depend on personal biases. Some will argue that the debate should be had in the thread involving the tweet and it's replies, but, the truth be told, most people will not read that debate, and will only see the original tweet, retweet it and etc., thereby promoting the potential misinformation steadily across the planet. 

Personally, I don't see an issue with the fact check link. I don't buy the argument that it's censorship first and foremost. People still have a choice whether to believe what the tweet said without ever even clicking the link, or, they can click the link and make up their own minds. I figure twitter honestly handled the situation pretty well to be honest. They did not change anything the president said, and inspite of him using his personal account, he is still the president and not just a random Twitter user. He really should be subject to fact check scrutiny without people needing to wade through all of the garbage in the thread to make a decision. 

Just my personal opinion on the entire thing. The president deserves additional scrutiny over any other member really, but, he has been granted a lot of leeway since becoming president rather than additional scrutiny from the platform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I have to say that I'm kind of torn on this. While some of us know and understand that DJT's opinion is potentially wrong, and certainly isn't backed up by any major evidence, is it right to censor what he is saying. 

I don't agree that Twitter adding a fact check link is censorship. He was allowed to say whatever he wanted to. Hence he wasn't censored at all. 

Now, if we want to debate whether editing his tweet to add the link was wrong or not, then I feel like we are getting somewhere. 

People will have a lot of differing views on this, most will depend on personal biases. Some will argue that the debate should be had in the thread involving the tweet and it's replies, but, the truth be told, most people will not read that debate, and will only see the original tweet, retweet it and etc., thereby promoting the misinformation steadily across the planet. 

Personally, I don't see an issue with the fact check link. I don't buy the argument that it's censorship first and foremost. People still have a choice whether to believe what the tweet said without ever even clicking the link, or, they can click the link and make up their own minds. I figure twitter honestly handled the situation pretty well to be honest. They did not change anything the president said, and inspite of him using his personal account, he is still the president and not just a random Twitter user. He really should be subject to fact check scrutiny without people needing to wade through all of the garbage in the thread to make a decision. 

Just my personal opinion on the entire thing. The president deserves additional scrutiny over any other member really, but, he has been granted a lot of leeway since becoming president rather than additional scrutiny from the platform. 

I don’t think it was an edit either.  An edit, /changes/corrects, modifies conteant directly to his message, it wasn’t.  You have to physically click in the link to gain access.  If you reject the additional info, you don’t have to click the link. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Horsefly said:

I don’t think it was an edit either.  An edit, /changes/adds conteant directly to his message, it wasn’t.  You have to physically click on the link to gain access.  If you reject the additional info, you don’t have to click the link. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Horsefly said:

I don’t think it was an edit either.  An edit, /changes/adds conteant directly to his message, it wasn’t.  You have to physically click in the link to gain access.  If you reject the additional info, you don’t have to click the link. 

It was an edit as it was added directly to the tweet, not pinned as the top comment or some other thing. It was added directly into his tweet. Idk if there was a better way to add the fact check though. I'd lean toward pinning a comment directly below the tweet that can't be removed or bypassed over adding something directly to the tweet, even though it's evident that the president didn't say it or add it himself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

you didn’t read the tweets and a link is not a modification, as the tweet and it’s message content was intact.

The reader is still fully able to read and reject the tweets in part or whole as the poster intended. 
   
 

Why would I even need to read his tweets to know the deal?

What you are missing here is that in a PRIVATE setting....the "TRUTH" is only what the PRIVATE OWNER declares it to be...

...And selective enforcement is also within their rights....

DUH!

So any argument on what is "actually true" whether you believe it or not is moot in a private setting...

 

Oh and BTW: Prepgridiron can just slap a brown Scarlet Letter "N" on your moniker anytime they like ....you know....with a link and note indicating that as a black man you are much more likely to steal and wind up in jail....cool huh?  you are not being censored...... and too bad if it is only selectively enforced....👍....great argument you are championing there huh?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

It was an edit as it was added directly to the tweet, not pinned as the top comment or some other thing. It was added directly into his tweet. Idk if there was a better way to add the fact check though. I'd lean toward pinning a comment directly below the tweet that can't be removed or bypassed over adding something directly to the tweet, even though it's evident that the president didn't say it or add it himself. 

 

A better way would have been the following disclaimer..."Trumpy The Ass Clown is a known habitual fucking liar.  Read his tweets at your own peril."

-----Twitter Management------

 

 

Rufus>>

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rufus69 said:

A better way would have been the following disclaimer..."Trumpy The Ass Clown is a known habitual fucking liar.  Read his tweets at your own peril."

-----Twitter Management------

 

 

Rufus>>

Why do you think they even need a note? 🤔🤣

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rufus69 said:

A better way would have been the following disclaimer..."Trumpy The Ass Clown is a known habitual fucking liar.  Read his tweets at your own peril."

-----Twitter Management------

 

 

Rufus>>

I think that's kind of what they did. xD

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Troll said:

Why would I even need to read his tweets to know the deal?

What you are missing here is that in a PRIVATE setting....the "TRUTH" is only what the PRIVATE OWNER declares it to be...

...And selective enforcement is also within their rights....

DUH!

So any argument on what is "actually true" whether you believe it or not is moot in a private setting...

 

Oh and BTW: Prepgridiron can just slap a brown Scarlet Letter "N" on your moniker anytime they like ....you know....with a link and note indicating that as a black man you are much more likely to steal and wind up in jail....cool huh?  you are not being censored...... and too bad if it is only selectively enforced....👍....great argument you are championing there huh?

 

If you read it you’d have a better understanding of what you’re babbling about instead of walking around all the time clueless

this isn’t about arbitrarily adding links, they are accusing him of violating the terms of use.  I read it, it’s specific to his tweet.  

no one is compelled to open and read the link. You can read trumps tweet in full without interruption and keep moving.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...