Are these children, as in “too young to vote, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana anyway” children? I’m not exactly seeing what you’re getting at here. What poll is this anyways?
Y’know, I’m a born-and-raised American who said the exact same thing, yet you have nothing to say about that. In fact, I note that you have said nothing on the substance of what either of us has said on the subject.
I replied to a discussion on free speech that the op should use their free speech to counter people rather than advocating for hate speech laws and Twitter shadow banned me.
The “evidence” you offered (which were actually just more claims without evidence, BTW) had nothing to do with that particular claim. I have no idea what you were trying to prove, but it wasn’t what anyone else was discussing.
Let’s say I was to have a bulletin board in my yard (both of which are my private property), and my yard is in an area that many people frequent and would thus be able to read my bulletin board often. I decide to post a sign saying that, barring some terms and conditions, I will allow anyone who wants to post anything on my bulletin board to do so, and many people take me up on my offer.
Now, let’s say that someone posts something on my bulletin board that I know to be false. I decide to add a note saying that that post is misleading/wrong and a reference for people to learn more. This is in no way infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights; on the contrary, it is an instance of me exercising my right to free speech. I could also choose to remove the offending material if I so desired without infringing on the First Amendment because I’m a private citizen and the bulletin board is still my private property even if I’m allowing the public to use it.
Legally speaking, there is no material difference between this example and what Twitter did here. Trump posted something on Twitter’s privately-owned property that’s open to the public, and Twitter (a private entity) chose to add a message saying that his post was incorrect or misleading along with a reference to provide additional context. This is not censorship or infringement of the First Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to mention.
I believe there is some confusion here. Let me summarize the sequence of events as I understand them.
ECA said a bunch of things that are nonsense, including this:
Like those Old MW towers used in the past, that would warm your body in winter, as it Slowly Cooked your insides..
That is, they specifically alleged that people’s insides were cooked by old transmission towers in the past. An AC—reasonably believing this was nonsense—asked for a citation for that specific allegation. You saw an implicit denial that such radiation cannot cause heating at all, and so made a smartass comment pointing out that heating does occur. The first AC defended their comment by saying that that fact was meaningless, pointing out that in the specific circumstances alleged, the other factors would make any heating not only no further than skindeep but also negligible. You made a smartass remark implying that that was equivalent to denying that fact. I then pointed out that that’s not what “meaningless” means, and you said that I was saying that misstating facts is of “no consequence”.
Here’s the thing: I fail to see where the first AC misstated any facts. They never denied that heating occurs at all. They were specifically arguing against the proposition that some particular technology used in the past would and actually did have a significant heating effect on humans’ insides, and you don’t appear to dispute that disagreement based on other things you’ve said. Basically, between you, the first AC, and myself, none of us have actually disagreed on any material facts here.
I understand that. I’m asking what that particular story—which doesn’t address the effects such radiation may or may not have on humans—had to do with the topic at hand at all.
WTF does that have to do with dangers from radiation? Injuries from weapons guided by radar tells us literally nothing about safety of the radiation itself. Nothing in what you just said has any actual relevance.
That’s not what they said, and you know it. “It’s meaningles”s just means that: it is of no consequence whether or not it occurred or not. In this case, the statement, “microwaves can cause heating,” is meaningless (at least on its own) when discussing the safety of 5G. Radiated power (not to be confused with consumed power), wavelength, beam width, distance from the source, and the surroundings are necessary factors to account for.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: R
That’s not how the law works.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I normally don’t judge like this, but are you being deliberately stupid? What was said was crystal clear and blunt, and it wasn’t “nothing to say”.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re:
Are these children, as in “too young to vote, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana anyway” children? I’m not exactly seeing what you’re getting at here. What poll is this anyways?
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Fact Check Twitter
Y’know, I’m a born-and-raised American who said the exact same thing, yet you have nothing to say about that. In fact, I note that you have said nothing on the substance of what either of us has said on the subject.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how would PaulT’s identity be relevant in such a lawsuit? Also, why would TechDirt know any more about who he is?
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This seems like classic projection.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re:
What was asked to be proved (by someone else):
The “evidence” you offered (which were actually just more claims without evidence, BTW) had nothing to do with that particular claim. I have no idea what you were trying to prove, but it wasn’t what anyone else was discussing.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who is this “Uncle Joe”, and why should anyone care what he said?
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You haven’t exactly provided any evidence, so why should we take what you say as true? Also, if you don’t like it here, why do you care so much?
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re:
Just as a reminder, the people running this website don’t choose what gets hidden. That’s entirely on users.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Fact Check Twitter
Let’s say I was to have a bulletin board in my yard (both of which are my private property), and my yard is in an area that many people frequent and would thus be able to read my bulletin board often. I decide to post a sign saying that, barring some terms and conditions, I will allow anyone who wants to post anything on my bulletin board to do so, and many people take me up on my offer.
Now, let’s say that someone posts something on my bulletin board that I know to be false. I decide to add a note saying that that post is misleading/wrong and a reference for people to learn more. This is in no way infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights; on the contrary, it is an instance of me exercising my right to free speech. I could also choose to remove the offending material if I so desired without infringing on the First Amendment because I’m a private citizen and the bulletin board is still my private property even if I’m allowing the public to use it.
Legally speaking, there is no material difference between this example and what Twitter did here. Trump posted something on Twitter’s privately-owned property that’s open to the public, and Twitter (a private entity) chose to add a message saying that his post was incorrect or misleading along with a reference to provide additional context. This is not censorship or infringement of the First Amendment.
On the post: Introducing The Tech Policy Greenhouse: Let's Have Thoughtful Conversations About The Biggest Tech Policy Challenges
Re: Good luck
That’s very good advice!
On the post: New Study Tries, Fails, To Claim Community Broadband Is An Inevitable Boondoggle
Honestly, if this is the best they have to discredit municipal broadband, then municipal broadband doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
On the post: Yes, This Site Uses Cookies, Because Nearly All Sites Use Cookies, And We're Notifying You Because We're Told We Have To
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically, you had to go with the least bad. I hate when anyone has to deal with those sorts of decisions, but what can you do? 🤷♂️
On the post: US Press Continues To Help Prop Up Bullshit 5G Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to mention.
I believe there is some confusion here. Let me summarize the sequence of events as I understand them.
ECA said a bunch of things that are nonsense, including this:
That is, they specifically alleged that people’s insides were cooked by old transmission towers in the past. An AC—reasonably believing this was nonsense—asked for a citation for that specific allegation. You saw an implicit denial that such radiation cannot cause heating at all, and so made a smartass comment pointing out that heating does occur. The first AC defended their comment by saying that that fact was meaningless, pointing out that in the specific circumstances alleged, the other factors would make any heating not only no further than skindeep but also negligible. You made a smartass remark implying that that was equivalent to denying that fact. I then pointed out that that’s not what “meaningless” means, and you said that I was saying that misstating facts is of “no consequence”.
Here’s the thing: I fail to see where the first AC misstated any facts. They never denied that heating occurs at all. They were specifically arguing against the proposition that some particular technology used in the past would and actually did have a significant heating effect on humans’ insides, and you don’t appear to dispute that disagreement based on other things you’ve said. Basically, between you, the first AC, and myself, none of us have actually disagreed on any material facts here.
On the post: US Press Continues To Help Prop Up Bullshit 5G Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to mention.
I believe it was this:
They wouldn’t really warm anything below skindeep, and they wouldn’t cook anything at all, so that’s almost certainly nonsense.
On the post: US Press Continues To Help Prop Up Bullshit 5G Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to mention.
The key part being denied was “as it slowly cooked your insides”. I don’t see where anyone denied the warming entirely.
On the post: US Press Continues To Help Prop Up Bullshit 5G Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to mention.
I understand that. I’m asking what that particular story—which doesn’t address the effects such radiation may or may not have on humans—had to do with the topic at hand at all.
On the post: US Press Continues To Help Prop Up Bullshit 5G Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to mention.
WTF does that have to do with dangers from radiation? Injuries from weapons guided by radar tells us literally nothing about safety of the radiation itself. Nothing in what you just said has any actual relevance.
On the post: US Press Continues To Help Prop Up Bullshit 5G Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just to mention.
That’s not what they said, and you know it. “It’s meaningles”s just means that: it is of no consequence whether or not it occurred or not. In this case, the statement, “microwaves can cause heating,” is meaningless (at least on its own) when discussing the safety of 5G. Radiated power (not to be confused with consumed power), wavelength, beam width, distance from the source, and the surroundings are necessary factors to account for.
Next >>