Let’s say 230 was ruled to be unconstitutional. Wouldn’t that mean we’d all have to deal with a patchwork of state laws that govern moderation? That seems like a good enough reason alone to keep 230 intact.
A woman with no connection to any election-related job claims she saw 11,000 votes stolen from a polling place and taken to Area 51 by little gray men in a UFO. Should she be treated as credible?
Any initial accusation—and the person making it—need to have some semblance of credibility. It’s why random jackoffs saying the election was stolen are unbelievable.
And by the by: You never answered the question of how many of those making the claims were credible from the get-go.
enough to get coverage
Then where can I, a regular jackoff, view the evidence of the stolen election that those “whistleblowers” presented?
I didn’t say it was wide scale.
You’re being a disingenuous little shit. PaulT already proved as much.
not much coverage from WaPo
oh I get it you hate WaPo so it must be a lie factory hahahahahah fuck you
You commit to misunderstanding people. You commit to your fractal wrongness even when proven how wrong you are. You never answer a direct question with a direct, on-point answer. Either you’re a Republican lawmaker or you’re a professional troll (which can be the same thing under the right circumstances). In either case, trying to have a good faith discussion with you is pointless because you don’t commit to good faith. You’re no longer worth my time; all your comments will now be flag-on-sight.
Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled.
They may not be compelled into speaking, sure. But they’d be compelled into hosting speech they don’t want to host. Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
I didn’t ask if these whistleblowers exist. I didn’t ask which press outlet they went to. I asked whether they (and their claims) had credibility.
This will be the last time I ask you these questions. Make an effort to sincerely understand me this time, Lodos. Refuse that request and I’ll write you off as a professional troll from here on out. With that said:
How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility?
How many of them showed their supposed evidence to the courts/the press?
If they showed that evidence, how much of it backed up claims of widescale voter fraud?
If they showed that evidence to the press, does the outlet that saw the evidence treat lies, half-truths, and misinformation as facts on a regular basis?
project veritas Broke quite a few whistle blower stories.
Project Veritas tried to falsely accuse Roy Moore of a sex crime so they could do a “gotcha” on the Washington Post. They also have a history of selectively editing video footage to make their subjects look worse. Maybe don’t rely on them as a source for news. Their credibility is, at best, suspect.
It’s not wise to start an investigation with ‘not credible’.
If an accusation is credible, yes, investigate. But those who make a claim have the burden of proving it. No proof equals no credibility.
Again, I ask you: How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility? How many of them offered the evidence they supposedly had to the courts—or even the press? Dodging these questions again will kill the iota of credibility you have left. Answer them or fuck off.
Yes states have the right to restrict an private employers ability to fire employees for what they say.
Those protections aren’t absolute. Or are you arguing that an employer shouldn’t be able to fire a white employee who says the N-word to a Black person?
Chris Cox was admittedly trying to provide incentive for private actors to restrict speech
He wanted private actors to moderate speech because the government couldn’t (and shouldn’t). And private actors can, with few exceptions, legally restrict speech on property they own. Anyone who says otherwise is arguing for compelled speech.
Just because they went to one paper or station and not another doesn’t make them any more or less suspect.
It…kinda does, if the outlet they went to is known for pushing lies and falsehoods.
And again, I ask: How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility? How many of them offered the evidence they supposedly had to the courts—or even the press?
You voted for a fool, then. Doesn’t say much about you.
And only a fool says there wasn’t fraud. There’s fraud in every election.
Was there enough fraud to overturn the 2020 presidential election results? And why has there never been accusations of widescale fraud in the non-presidential elections?
We just happen to have very public displays of it last election.
The courts asked for such evidence to back up claims of election fraud. Nobody delivered it. Take three guesses why; the first two don’t count.
Like the capital riot, the people who committed fraud in the election should be punished.
The feds have arrested more than 500 people in connection with the riot. Can you provide any credible indication that more than 500 people committed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election?
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
A thought occurs.
Let’s say 230 was ruled to be unconstitutional. Wouldn’t that mean we’d all have to deal with a patchwork of state laws that govern moderation? That seems like a good enough reason alone to keep 230 intact.
On the post: Tenth Circuit: No Immunity For Cops Who Protected An Abusive Fellow Officer Right Up Until He Murdered His Ex-Wife
Maybe don’t defund the police, but definitely defund all those motherfuckers.
On the post: Social Tech Loses Appeal To Apple Over 'Memoji' Trademark Because Suing Apple Isn't Using The Mark In Commerce
A saying along those lines:
Before you send a message, imagine it with the words “Exhibit A” attached.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
shut up, Meg
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Christ, you’re an asshole.
I see you committed to misunderstanding me again.
A woman with no connection to any election-related job claims she saw 11,000 votes stolen from a polling place and taken to Area 51 by little gray men in a UFO. Should she be treated as credible?
Any initial accusation—and the person making it—need to have some semblance of credibility. It’s why random jackoffs saying the election was stolen are unbelievable.
And by the by: You never answered the question of how many of those making the claims were credible from the get-go.
Then where can I, a regular jackoff, view the evidence of the stolen election that those “whistleblowers” presented?
You’re being a disingenuous little shit. PaulT already proved as much.
oh I get it you hate WaPo so it must be a lie factory hahahahahah fuck you
You commit to misunderstanding people. You commit to your fractal wrongness even when proven how wrong you are. You never answer a direct question with a direct, on-point answer. Either you’re a Republican lawmaker or you’re a professional troll (which can be the same thing under the right circumstances). In either case, trying to have a good faith discussion with you is pointless because you don’t commit to good faith. You’re no longer worth my time; all your comments will now be flag-on-sight.
Fuck all the way off and stay there.
On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
They may not be compelled into speaking, sure. But they’d be compelled into hosting speech they don’t want to host. Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Let’s clear this up.
I didn’t ask if these whistleblowers exist. I didn’t ask which press outlet they went to. I asked whether they (and their claims) had credibility.
This will be the last time I ask you these questions. Make an effort to sincerely understand me this time, Lodos. Refuse that request and I’ll write you off as a professional troll from here on out. With that said:
How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility?
How many of them showed their supposed evidence to the courts/the press?
If they showed that evidence, how much of it backed up claims of widescale voter fraud?
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Project Veritas tried to falsely accuse Roy Moore of a sex crime so they could do a “gotcha” on the Washington Post. They also have a history of selectively editing video footage to make their subjects look worse. Maybe don’t rely on them as a source for news. Their credibility is, at best, suspect.
If an accusation is credible, yes, investigate. But those who make a claim have the burden of proving it. No proof equals no credibility.
Again, I ask you: How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility? How many of them offered the evidence they supposedly had to the courts—or even the press? Dodging these questions again will kill the iota of credibility you have left. Answer them or fuck off.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawWhat part of the ruling makes you think his will be overturned? Be specific.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Those protections aren’t absolute. Or are you arguing that an employer shouldn’t be able to fire a white employee who says the N-word to a Black person?
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
He wanted private actors to moderate speech because the government couldn’t (and shouldn’t). And private actors can, with few exceptions, legally restrict speech on property they own. Anyone who says otherwise is arguing for compelled speech.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
No, it’s an opinion—and a protected one, at that.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
It…kinda does, if the outlet they went to is known for pushing lies and falsehoods.
And again, I ask: How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility? How many of them offered the evidence they supposedly had to the courts—or even the press?
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
[citation needed]
And how many of them were credible sources of information, again?
On the post: 'Resident Evil 8: Village' Broken Due To DRM, Cracked Version Fixes It
Eh, that’s any given oil company these days.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
You voted for a fool, then. Doesn’t say much about you.
Was there enough fraud to overturn the 2020 presidential election results? And why has there never been accusations of widescale fraud in the non-presidential elections?
The courts asked for such evidence to back up claims of election fraud. Nobody delivered it. Take three guesses why; the first two don’t count.
The feds have arrested more than 500 people in connection with the riot. Can you provide any credible indication that more than 500 people committed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election?
On the post: Court To Judge Roy Moore: You're Not Defamation-Proof, But This Contract You Signed Sure Is
Sad thing is, you could probably find some people to sincerely agree with you.
On the post: Court To Judge Roy Moore: You're Not Defamation-Proof, But This Contract You Signed Sure Is
Cohen should do something special to celebrate his win. Perhaps he could go shopping at the Gadsden Mall.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
Power doesn’t corrupt—it reveals.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
Or, to put it more bluntly: “Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.”
Next >>