The article appears to be claiming Twitter is not biased against conservatives because they banned some liberals. It's right there in the title.
If I were to claim that all dogs are nice, and to prove my claim show you my dog which is in fact quite pleasant, would that validate my claim? Of course not!
In the same way showing that Twitter banned some liberals for TOS violations does not in any way refute the claim Twitter has a bias against conservatives.
Twitter banned accounts that violated Twitter TOS
Those accounts were operated by liberals
Therefore Twitter can't possibly have an anti-conservative bent, because in this case it shut down some liberals.
About a week after I disabled mine the app (and email I think) started bugging me to know why I was no longer using my CPAP. So yeah, it probably does disable the data. If you were to be properly foil-hatted about it I seem to remember it had a removable SIM chip. YMMV.
So we shouldn't pass laws because police will selectively enforce them for their own benefit? If the issue is with enforcement, might there be a better answer to the problem than advocating inaction?
"Should protesters be held financially responsible for the violent acts of others? " Categorically not! That's why (as you seem to have missed or overlooked) they're going after protesters who have been arrested for doing something illegal.
"Is any proof of ones culpability required?" I'd imaging this is something the court would handle... You know, did the person arrested commit a crime. I hear that's kinda what they're about.
"Is this third party liability on steroids?" Right now all taxpayers are liable for these extra costs. This puts more cost on people caught breaking the law at the protest. This is the opposite of third party liability.
"What is the minimum distance required in order to be considered a participant in said protest?" I have no idea. Maybe you could do your own research to answer your question.
"What about the LEO funded instigators, do they also have to pay?" Logic is awesome. That would mean the state would be paying money to... the state! If by some fluke a paid protester ended up losing some of their own money, would anyone be upset for them?
"These questions... are unanswered and will remain so..." Well, now they're answered and you're welcome.
"... in order to allow maximum disruption of your first amendment rights." Don't be so melodramatic. You still have free speech. You do NOT have a right to do anything illegal, for which you might be arrested. Do you understand the difference?
Hurricanes and volcanic eruptions are not directly caused by the people affected by them.
OTOH, if I get arrested for breaking the law at a protest I elected to attend, it would be difficult to argue I don't bear some responsibility for my actions.
If you choose to burn your house down, I don't feel the urge to buy you another one. This is not "Socialism !!!111" this is called personal responsibility.
Violent protests are not the same as natural disasters. The idea they should be treated in the same way is silly.
Right now EVERYONE is paying for the extra resources required to "secure" these events. Yes, it's quite possible your grandmother is paying for the police watching Antifa break things and set them on fire. Doesn't it make sense that the person(s) arrested for doing something illegal at a protest bear a higher cost burden than some random taxpayer who has nothing to do with the protest?
It certainly made me think about the wisdom of standing in front of a huge bull and weather looking properly defiant would make any difference. Next up, let's debate weather a small child should stand in front of a charging rhinoceros!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by zugmeister.
Re: Re: Logic is awesome
The article appears to be claiming Twitter is not biased against conservatives because they banned some liberals. It's right there in the title.
If I were to claim that all dogs are nice, and to prove my claim show you my dog which is in fact quite pleasant, would that validate my claim? Of course not!
In the same way showing that Twitter banned some liberals for TOS violations does not in any way refute the claim Twitter has a bias against conservatives.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean you can talk on Usenet? I thought it was exclusively for Pron and Warez!
Logic is awesome
So the logic here:
Twitter banned accounts that violated Twitter TOS
Those accounts were operated by liberals
Therefore Twitter can't possibly have an anti-conservative bent, because in this case it shut down some liberals.
Did I miss something?
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
If the issue is with enforcement, might there be a better answer to the problem than advocating inaction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'd just like to point out...
Categorically not! That's why (as you seem to have missed or overlooked) they're going after protesters who have been arrested for doing something illegal.
"Is any proof of ones culpability required?"
I'd imaging this is something the court would handle... You know, did the person arrested commit a crime. I hear that's kinda what they're about.
"Is this third party liability on steroids?"
Right now all taxpayers are liable for these extra costs. This puts more cost on people caught breaking the law at the protest. This is the opposite of third party liability.
"What is the minimum distance required in order to be considered a participant in said protest?"
I have no idea. Maybe you could do your own research to answer your question.
"What about the LEO funded instigators, do they also have to pay?"
Logic is awesome. That would mean the state would be paying money to... the state! If by some fluke a paid protester ended up losing some of their own money, would anyone be upset for them?
"These questions... are unanswered and will remain so..."
Well, now they're answered and you're welcome.
"... in order to allow maximum disruption of your first amendment rights."
Don't be so melodramatic. You still have free speech.
You do NOT have a right to do anything illegal, for which you might be arrested. Do you understand the difference?
Re: Re: I'd just like to point out...
OTOH, if I get arrested for breaking the law at a protest I elected to attend, it would be difficult to argue I don't bear some responsibility for my actions.
If you choose to burn your house down, I don't feel the urge to buy you another one. This is not "Socialism !!!111" this is called personal responsibility.
Violent protests are not the same as natural disasters. The idea they should be treated in the same way is silly.
I'd just like to point out...
Re: Memo to "Fearless Girl"
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by zugmeister.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt