And it turns out that none of those people seem to be showing up here to talk about how this is egregious censorship from a social media company or how these bans shouldn’t be protected by Section 230 or whatever.
I have One Simple Question for you based on your post.
Yes or no: 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?
When people are "censored" elsewhere for things like homophobia, transphobia, racism and spreading false information, those things seem to have become so central to their identities that they take it as a personal attack.
Bigots truly believe the worst thing you can do to them is call them what they are.
Huh. This must be an example of the “political differences” over which some people around here say Twitter and Facebook ban people. And yet, this isn’t a story about Twitter and Facebook. Odd. 🤔
The right wing of American politics is entwined with the Religious Right so tightly that they’re basically one and the same. As a result, conservative/Republican politicians tend to lean towards policies, platforms, and leaders that mean to enact authoritarian Christian nationalism. They don’t want to govern a country. They want a strongman leader to rule a Christian empire and put them near the top of the ladder.
That is a big reason they’re all fawning over Putin right now: They see him as the antidote to modern American “weakness”—or “wokeness”, if you prefer—and think anyone who even remotely acts like him is worth propping up. His history of suppressing his opposition with violence, his enshrining anti-queer attitudes into law, his invading a sovereign nation because he wants the USSR back—if anything, these are things conservatives would sooner celebrate than condemn.
And if you think I’m bullshitting on that last point…well, someone said the quiet part out loud on live TV, so it’s hard to argue with that kind of evidence.
You joke, but the “Worst People” Problem is ultimately why the growth of right-wing platforms like Gab and Parler end up stalling. It will be among the reasons Trump Social will eventually shut down.
Subjective banning based on political difference is not good faith moderation, and is unprotected.
Moderation is community curation; if a community (or its “leader”) decides the community is better off without certain political opinions being expressed in its community, they’re allowed to say so and ban anyone who expresses that opinion. The law—as in, both the First Amendment and Section 230—protect that decision.
Also: Which “political differences” are you referring to here, Koby? Be specific.
It’s telling that you think someone holding down a job and making a decent sum of money as a result must be a fraud instead of, you know, someone who actually works for a living.
Still haven’t told us who you worked for and what marvelous inventions you made while working for them, by the by. Cite the claim, bitch.
To be fair, that’s not the only time he’s been shitty to or said something shitty about women. But it is the only time he’s ever been on tape being honest about how he feels about women.
I'm more reliable source for the information, given that I worked with the project.
You won’t name the company. You won’t name the project. You won’t provide a link to the Wikipedia page that you say will back up all of your claims. That doesn’t sound like a reliable—or credible—source of information to me.
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
…what
On the post: Censr: Alt-Right Twitter Alternative Gettr Bans Posts, Accounts Calling One Of Its Backers A Chinese Spy
And it turns out that none of those people seem to be showing up here to talk about how this is egregious censorship from a social media company or how these bans shouldn’t be protected by Section 230 or whatever.
Odd. 🤔
On the post: Why It Makes No Sense To Call Websites 'Common Carriers'
I have One Simple Question for you based on your post.
Yes or no: 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: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
oh god, I fell into a hole and now it's suddenly 2 September 2000
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
In re: Mike Parson…
…an evergreen retort is needed:
Christ, what an asshole.
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Bigots truly believe the worst thing you can do to them is call them what they are.
On the post: Censr: Alt-Right Twitter Alternative Gettr Bans Posts, Accounts Calling One Of Its Backers A Chinese Spy
Huh. This must be an example of the “political differences” over which some people around here say Twitter and Facebook ban people. And yet, this isn’t a story about Twitter and Facebook. Odd. 🤔
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
The right wing of American politics is entwined with the Religious Right so tightly that they’re basically one and the same. As a result, conservative/Republican politicians tend to lean towards policies, platforms, and leaders that mean to enact authoritarian Christian nationalism. They don’t want to govern a country. They want a strongman leader to rule a Christian empire and put them near the top of the ladder.
That is a big reason they’re all fawning over Putin right now: They see him as the antidote to modern American “weakness”—or “wokeness”, if you prefer—and think anyone who even remotely acts like him is worth propping up. His history of suppressing his opposition with violence, his enshrining anti-queer attitudes into law, his invading a sovereign nation because he wants the USSR back—if anything, these are things conservatives would sooner celebrate than condemn.
And if you think I’m bullshitting on that last point…well, someone said the quiet part out loud on live TV, so it’s hard to argue with that kind of evidence.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
It’s not even the first time he’s said he’d be okay with Trumpian incest.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Don’t forget the metaphorical kissing of Vladimir Putin’s ass.
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
As I noted in a different comment, this phenomenon has a name: the “Worst People” Problem.
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
You joke, but the “Worst People” Problem is ultimately why the growth of right-wing platforms like Gab and Parler end up stalling. It will be among the reasons Trump Social will eventually shut down.
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Moderation is community curation; if a community (or its “leader”) decides the community is better off without certain political opinions being expressed in its community, they’re allowed to say so and ban anyone who expresses that opinion. The law—as in, both the First Amendment and Section 230—protect that decision.
Also: Which “political differences” are you referring to here, Koby? Be specific.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Cite the claim, bitch.
And also provide a citation for your claim of having worked for a company and made numerous cell phones/inventions/whatever.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
It’s telling that you think someone holding down a job and making a decent sum of money as a result must be a fraud instead of, you know, someone who actually works for a living.
Still haven’t told us who you worked for and what marvelous inventions you made while working for them, by the by. Cite the claim, bitch.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
We don’t need to make fifth-rate Blender ripoffs when Blender already exists.
Cite your claims or fuck off, Nazi.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
You don’t object to the summary execution of copyright infringers by the federal government, though.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
To be fair, that’s not the only time he’s been shitty to or said something shitty about women. But it is the only time he’s ever been on tape being honest about how he feels about women.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
You won’t name the company. You won’t name the project. You won’t provide a link to the Wikipedia page that you say will back up all of your claims. That doesn’t sound like a reliable—or credible—source of information to me.
Put up or shut up, fuck-up.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Took a little digging to find the answer, but apparently, T.S uses a fork called “Soapbox”, which was itself forked from Gab’s own Masto fork.
Next >>