Jump to content

Censorship on this site?


On2whls

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, maxchoboian said:

Do we have two things going on in this thread? One having to do with GSB seemingly requesting that he, and all his posts, be wiped from the annals of this board, and the other regarding the general topic of censorship in the current age of social media.

Censorship conversations can be deep and thought-provoking, as can already be seen in this thread. I'm in no shape this morning to add anything of value to that discussion (visited with a brother of mine last night who I hadn't seen in too long, and a couple things we realized immediately when seeing one another was that we missed getting together more frequently, and that we were both real thirsty -- lots of laughs, much needed good time).

GSB calling it quits is a much simpler thing. Some family member of his probably saw the results of all the time he spent on here and flat out asked him wtf?! He scrambled to get everything of his removed, then denied to that family member he ever participated here. And then quickly changed the subject by saying he'd buy them something.

There is two separate discussions basically. I think they hinged from what actually happened and how the reaction to and about that happened also. 

Its a good conversation to have really. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think as per everything we read on here, folks run to the most extreme angle they can find on it. Personally, having the terms of service that twitter does, they could have and probably should have dinged the Donald a while back rather than the little "warning" messages attached. When its let go too far we see the Donald and family having a watch party while retards break into the capital with lil dons wife dancing in excitement all the while. 

Twitter, Facebook, and etc can't risk it, man.....your monsters like ted cruz and that crew can risk it for votes.

Instead of getting on twitter these fools should be looking at the monsters donald has created before more madness develops.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RedZone said:

The only angle should be a smooth transition of power. It hasn't happened yet. Should twitter be forced to be a player in that transition because of ONE MAN?

 

Twitter is a player whether they want to be or not. As is Facebook, parler, reddit and even here. 

The question is whether they are correct to stop what so many see as inciteful speech and rhetoric or whether they have any obligation to do anything at all. There is an ebb and flow to opinion on these things depending on who is getting dinged. 

I'm of the opinion they should have done something sooner in general, but, I can be empathetic to the opposition opinion as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see posters who spend a good part of the last 4 years fluffing trump and saying all sorts of nasty, insulting, and just plain incorrect stuff now trying to come off as all reasonable and fair-minded I’m reminded of all the cabinet members and GOP senators who spent most of the last 4 years fluffing trump now crying about how bad he was and how he must go and boo hoo now they have to resign.

Bullshit.  What I see is a sinking ship and a bunch of rats measuring how far down it is to the water.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think as per everything we read on here, folks run to the most extreme angle they can find on it. Personally, having the terms of service that twitter does, they could have and probably should have dinged the Donald a while back rather than the little "warning" messages attached. When its let go too far we see the Donald and family having a watch party while retards break into the capital with lil dons wife dancing in excitement all the while. 

Nobody has any issue with the terms of service as they should not lose the rights of a private company, but was speaking there of any rule with actual consistency, not the rule that we do anything we want 🤓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Nobody has any issue with the terms of service as they should not lose the rights of a private company, but was speaking there of any rule with actual consistency, not the rule that we do anything we want 🤓

Why not?  That seems to be the only rule trump followed?.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Wosinc said:

Why not?  That seems to be the only rule trump followed?.

We know you 😡 are butthurt orange 🍊 but You wouldn’t want to try to argue consistency in a field of politicians, and compare the waffle stacks of trump to the norm. 🤓 Call him misdirected if you think but he’s been more consistent than most ( on policy in general, not day to day knee jerk stuff) 

We know you are not going to pass on any bashing opportunity but at least make it funny or at least realistic 👍

thanks👌

🍿

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newbie said:

Nobody has any issue with the terms of service as they should not lose the rights of a private company, but was speaking there of any rule with actual consistency, not the rule that we do anything we want 🤓

Why not?

If consistency was all that mattered, then a company could draft and consistently follow a rule that said all far-right speech was to be blocked.

As @zulu1128 pointed out, the 1A constrains only government actors, and as you say, a private company isn't legally obligated to publish anyone's ideas precisely because the company is protected by the 1A.

But things get tricky when the spaces in which billions of people communicate, including people in public office, are privately owned, since your 1A right shouldn't prevent me from exercising my 1A right just because you happen to own the space in which speech is expressed. 

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said something like the internet was poised to transform First Amendment jurisprudence. I think he had issues like these in mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Newbie said:

We know you 😡 are butthurt orange 🍊 but You wouldn’t want to try to argue consistency in a field of politicians, and compare the waffle stacks of trump to the norm. 🤓 Call him misdirected if you think but he’s been more consistent than most ( on policy in general, not day to day knee jerk stuff) 

We know you are not going to pass on any bashing opportunity but at least make it funny or at least realistic 👍

thanks👌

🍿

Blah blah trump blah blah misdirected blah blah.

gtfooh.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Belly Bob said:

Why not? Better question is why 

If consistency is all the mattered, they could draft and consistently follow a rule that said all far-right speech was to be blocked. That’s fine and they can put that on their flag 👍

As @zulu1128 pointed out, the 1A constrains only government actors, and as you say, a private company isn't legally obligated to publish anyone's ideas precisely because the company is protected by the 1A.  You know you are keeping your eyes 👀 off the ball 🏈 now 

But things get tricky when the spaces in which billions of people communicate, including people in public office, are privately owned, since your 1A right shouldn't prevent me from exercising my 1A right just because you happen to own the space in which speech is expressed. Agree in concept 

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said something like the internet was poised to transform First Amendment jurisprudence. I think he had issues like these in mind. Not hard to see the writing ✍️ on this wall    Unless of course you allow it to be construed or censored...inconsistently 👍 of course 🤓

See bolded above...

and what I mean by us not keeping our eyes 👀 on the ball 🏈 is that you and I can argue censorship line placement all day, while it’s not even going to be a problem for us until that dirty covid cash 💰 is rounded up and you only have access to your money 💵 thru that same technocracy...  🤓

But what does a newb know 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Newbie said:

See bolded above...

[...]

I'm happy to hear that your only concern is consistency.

If Big Tech gets big enough and builds into their terms of service that only far-left speech will be tolerated and if they follow that rule consistently, then we'd have no grounds to object.

Conservatives would still be free to chat, of course, but they'd have to figure out how to find each other and then how to exchange ideas.

Maybe they could build signal fires and then send carrier pigeons to each other's homes.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I'm happy to hear that your only concern is consistency.

If Big Tech gets big enough and builds into their terms of service that only far-left speech will be tolerated and if they follow that rule consistently, then we'd have no grounds to object.

Conservatives would still be free to chat, of course, but they'd have to figure out how to find each other and then how to exchange ideas.

Maybe they could build signal fires and then send carrier pigeons to each other's homes.

well if that's the best solution you can figure from there 🧐🤣

But I'm certain there could be a few others...🤓

either way, at least people are free to shout under their own banner.

 

A couple notes...do you think the real "risk" involved in GSB's posts were getting sued ???......or do you think getting "de-platformed" arbitrarily would be worse? (as you ponder which more lethal)...which do you think would be easier ?   or which one has more consistency in their rules to be able to rely upon for your business...?...and probably "most importantly" (as that silly newb noted LOL) which part of them controlling the access to a businesses cash does newb's technocracy already have🤔

 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...