Jump to content
If you posted something on 21 Feb 21, it likely didn't stick during the server migration. -DFRESH ×

Recommended Posts

Twitter/FB: US president personal Twitter account banned.

Govt: Can you ban the accounts of terrorist organizations, dictators, and those who are affiliated with them?

Twitter/FB: Crickets

As an independent voter, I want to hear both sides of the BS from both parties. Have to determine which is less full of $#@t. 

Edited by MyCS
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Found this entertaining Because screw that bitch and her "it's my turn" mentality. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images

52 minutes ago, MyCS said:

Twitter/FB: US president personal Twitter account banned.

Govt: Can you ban the accounts of terrorist organizations, dictators, and those who are affiliated with them?

Twitter/FB: Crickets

As an independent voter, I want to hear both sides of the BS from both parties. Have to determine which is less full of $#@t. 

It’s one thing to use something like Twitter to spout your agenda, bullshit ridden as it may be. It’s quite another to use it to incite riots, violence, and insurrection. From a business/market standpoint, I can absolutely understand why Twitter wants nothing to do with it. From a free speech standpoint, what the president did was literally analogous to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Sorry. He doesn’t get a pass on either count. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prozac said:

It’s one thing to use something like Twitter to spout your agenda, bullshit ridden as it may be. It’s quite another to use it to incite riots, violence, and insurrection. From a business/market standpoint, I can absolutely understand why Twitter wants nothing to do with it. From a free speech standpoint, what the president did was literally analogous to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Sorry. He doesn’t get a pass on either count. 

 

2 hours ago, MyCS said:

Twitter/FB: US president personal Twitter account banned.

Govt: Can you ban the accounts of terrorist organizations, dictators, and those who are affiliated with them?

Twitter/FB: Crickets

As an independent voter, I want to hear both sides of the BS from both parties. Have to determine which is less full of $#@t. 

I would also add there is an intelligence reason to not taking those down so fast sometimes.  I cannot go into further detail.

But they do take down a lot of stuff, just because you don't see it doesn't mean its happening.  I've posted on here some about the "hunters" that go after bot/ISIS/disinformation accounts.  Watching their work is pretty amazing.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prozac said:

Go spend some time down there. Then come back and tell me we’re the same. No contest brother. 

everyone in DC is bought and paid for. doesn't matter the "R" or the "D" (sts). if you think the most powerful government in world history isn't corrupt....we are probably way worse.

WE NEED TERM LIMITS

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

 

I would also add there is an intelligence reason to not taking those down so fast sometimes.  I cannot go into further detail.

But they do take down a lot of stuff, just because you don't see it doesn't mean its happening.  I've posted on here some about the "hunters" that go after bot/ISIS/disinformation accounts.  Watching their work is pretty amazing.

It's no secret what methods intelligence agencies use to those of us with access to those methods and posses the need to know.

The fact you're talking about it here in an open forum is probably not a good idea. Anyone can use this site. No different than talking about high value targets. 

Edited by MyCS
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MyCS said:

It's no secret what methods intelligence agencies use to those with access to our methods and posses the need to know.

The fact you're talking about it here in an open forum is probably not a good idea. Anyone can use this site. No different than talking about high value targets. 

K

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

everyone in DC is bought and paid for. doesn't matter the "R" or the "D" (sts). if you think the most powerful government in world history isn't corrupt....we are probably way worse.

WE NEED TERM LIMITS

 

While I agree, we already have the ability to vote out whoever we want.  Nobody does.  

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

6CD7EF5F-F543-4D77-9F83-01792A301FDE.jpeg

This is a really bad analogy. The inverse would have to be true then.

Democrats who have been asking Twitter for months to ban Trump (ie. a business should be able to choose its customers)... therefore should have been ok with the bakery not baking that cake.

The truth is a bakery makes an individualized product for customers, and is a contractor in that regard. They aren’t required to take every job.

Twitter has a platform for everyone to use, and thanks to Section 230/the first amendment, is regulated as if they were a digital public park. They do have to accept every legal customer initially.

For example, you can’t stop someone from walking into a public park and having a discussion. But you can have them kicked out or suspended for inciting violence. 

I personally think Trump being suspended for a period of time is fine legally. But I don’t think the threshold for a ban has been met. Especially when the Ayatollah can post this:

How is Trump banned... but he isn’t?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Splash95 said:

Amazon, Apple or Google can cancel or end whatever contract they like, in my opinion, as long as they’re doing so legally. Parler will have to find someone else, or make their own solution. Such is the cost of business.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2021 at 4:17 AM, Prosuper said:

I believe we will see mass voter non participation in future elections. I'm 58 and finally understand that both political parties are clubs for the sole purpose of getting the made guys elected. It was never about public service, since the Biden's are now in power the big money donors will call all the shots to include military contractors. Those of you still in Afghanistan or on the hook for it, we will be probably be staying now.  Back to the status quo , business as usual.

We spent the last month removing metric tons of equipment and personnel out of an unnamed third world wonder...only to be told we have to prepare to undo that and put everything back in a few weeks..
 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

This is a really bad analogy. The inverse would have to be true then.

Democrats who have been asking Twitter for months to ban Trump (ie. a business should be able to choose its customers)... therefore should have been ok with the bakery not baking that cake.

The truth is a bakery makes an individualized product for customers, and is a contractor in that regard. They aren’t required to take every job.

Twitter has a platform for everyone to use, and thanks to Section 230/the first amendment, is regulated as if they were a digital public park. They do have to accept every legal customer initially.

For example, you can’t stop someone from walking into a public park and having a discussion. But you can have them kicked out or suspended for inciting violence. 

I personally think Trump being suspended for a period of time is fine legally. But I don’t think the threshold for a ban has been met. Especially when the Ayatollah can post this:

How is Trump banned... but he isn’t?

Your logic is flawed. Twitter is a contractor as well, they provide a product, their social media forum/app/content, that you may use...if you agree to their Terms of Service. If you don’t agree, or adhere, to those ToS, then you aren’t using their service. If you violate the ToS, then you’re gone. It’s really that simple.

Here’s another example. A moderator here limited me posting awhile back because he said something in this thread that wasn’t true, I posted data that proved him wrong, which apparently made him mad.

He didn’t warn me or message me, he just did it. After inquiring why, he just told me when it would expire. Do I think what I said was wrong? No. Do I think he was being a snowflake? Yeah. Do I think he targeted me because he doesn’t like my political stance and got mad I made him look stupid? Yeah, there are people who post worst stuff than I did, but they didn’t have that happen.

However, I could’ve argued what he did wasn’t fair and was bullshit, which would’ve probably done nothing that have him ban me. Or I could just wait for the expiration of the post limit. At the end of the day I don’t have to use the forum and he doesn’t have to let me, I agreed to the ToS when I signed up.

Life isn’t fair, wear a helmet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Amazon, Apple or Google can cancel or end whatever contract they like, in my opinion, as long as they’re doing so legally. Parler will have to find someone else, or make their own solution. Such is the cost of business.

Sure but the conglomeration is sure indicative that tech has grown into key monopolies and I would say it's time for the Fed to come in and break them up. When you can literally prevent businesses from competing with other businesses you contract with, and there is no meaningful alternative, you are too big and the FTC hammer needs to come down. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream big said:

We spent the last month removing metric tons of equipment and personnel out of an unnamed third world wonder...only to be told we have to prepare to undo that and put everything back in a few weeks..
 

 

That’s because of some now censored idiot who wanted to show he pulled out of that country before the inauguration to say he did it. Solely due to optics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some other ties here. 1.) This totally conflicts with principles of net neutrality. The entire purpose of net neutrality was to prevent providers from preventing access to content and 2.) Im curious how the provider, in this case Amazon's, status a s a common carrier factors into this. 

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

That’s because of some now censored idiot who wanted to show he pulled out of that country before the inauguration to say he did it. Solely due to optics.

Was still great for the country either way. We have no reason to be there anymore. I dread the thought of us going back. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Sure but the conglomeration is sure indicative that tech has grown into key monopolies and I would say it's time for the Fed to come in and break them up. When you can literally prevent businesses from competing with other businesses you contract with, and there is no meaningful alternative, you are too big and the FTC hammer needs to come down. 

Plenty of people who hate liberals on Twitter...errr...sorry display “conservative values.” Just be the idiot who incites a riot to march to the U.S. Capitol and you’ll keep your tweeting privileges.

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

There are some other ties here. 1.) This totally conflicts with principles of net neutrality. The entire purpose of net neutrality was to prevent providers from preventing access to content and 2.) Im curious how the provider, in this case Amazon's, status a s a common carrier factors into this. 

Did you miss the part where the idiot FTC Chairman was trying his best to get rid of net neutrality? Which cause some states (e.g. California) to pass their own state law version. Thankfully that will be hopefully corrected once he loses his job in a few weeks.

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

Was still great for the country either way. We have no reason to be there anymore. I dread the thought of us going back. 

I agree, but not to just to do it for optics is wrong knowing it’ll go back.

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

Did you miss the part where the idiot FTC Chairman was trying his best to get rid of net neutrality? Which cause some states (e.g. California) to pass their own state law version. Thankfully that will be hopefully corrected once he loses his job in a few weeks.

No I'm aware. I'm a vocal supporter of net neutrality, but I'm surprised how many people here who advocate net neutrality and then think this is ok. I'm speaking more so about the removal of parler from app stores. 

"Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.[4][5]"

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FLEA said:

No I'm aware. I'm a vocal supporter of net neutrality, but I'm surprised how many people here who advocate net neutrality and then think this is ok. I'm speaking more so about the removal of parler from app stores. 

"Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.[4][5]"

 

 

 

 

I don't know, I'm really split on this because I hold Trump 95% responsible for what happened. I do think though we need to recognize noone held a gun to the rioters head and told them to do it. But I've read his speech in it's entirety and he never overtly says to commit a crime. His language was aggressive but we tend to allegory politics as a war often, so on its own language wasn't immediately hair raising. What I mean when I refer to allegorizing politics is we refer to swing states as battleground states, etc...

That said, in the position he's in, he needs to recognize his words are amplified. A mentor I knew once told me when a General whispers, the airmen hears megaphone. Ever person down the rank ladder hears a comment slightly louder until your A1C hears it as the most important thing happening in the AF right now. 

I don't know what's bring shit posted on parler but I can't immagine it's that far out of expected norms. Parlers TOS do prevent inviting violence. Based on the comments Twitter banned Trump for which were entirely innocuous, I can only assume people are making huge leaps to assumptions with this. "Oh my God, someone on parler said Republicans have a voice! That is going to spark a riot!" 

 

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The cancel culture stuff is way overblown. There are huge communities of conservatives on every platform that exist without the threat of bans for one simple reason: they don't go around threatening people and inciting violence. 
 

If cancel culture is such a problem you're gonna have to explain to me how the #4 and #5 podcasts on apple right now are Dan bongino and Ben Shapiro. Seriously.. All of the biggest political channels are conservative.  This is the case across most platforms.  Conservatives are killing it on social media, and this has been the case for a long time. 
 

The problem Parler has is that they are the dumping ground for everyone that got kicked off normal social media for rules violations. This isn't a healthy pool of people from which to draw your user base. Think of it like AETC. It's no wonder the culture is toxic when you're getting the rejects from everywhere else. On top of that they weren't enforcing their own terms of service or maybe the wretched hive of scum and villainy grew too large to enforce, and at some point the hosting companies took notice. Probably doesn't help when a contingent of your nutjob users storms the capitol of the country. 

I actually think social media companies have been handling the delineation between conservative opinions vs things that are actually illegal and dangerous really well. Platforms like YouTube and Twitter keep conservatives around who actively trash them on a daily basis as long as what they're saying isn't incitement. Hell, every Steven crowder episode is basically just 90 minutes of him complaining about the YouTube algorithms. 

 

Lastly, to everyone invoking the section 230 town square argument I have two things:

1. If you go to the town square and try to start an insurrection, you will get arrested.

2. If you want to form your own alternative town square, no one is legally obligated to lease the space they own to you.

 

TL;DR - if you want to behave like sh1t you're probably going to need to build your own infrastructure from the ground up.

 

Edited by Pooter
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.




×
×
  • Create New...