US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[unknown lions fan]

Ok, let me be more specific: Why would anyone want to participate in a platform that determines what speech is acceptable, when they - as an individual - have complete control over what speech they see? They can voluntarily associate or disassociate with anyone they choose, block anyone they want, and (as a last resort) scroll past anything they dont want to read?

[unknown lions fan]

lol, now I'm antifa? Priceless.

[dpatnod]

Ok, let me be more specific: Why would anyone want to participate in a platform that determines what speech is acceptable, when they - as an individual - have complete control over what speech they see? They can voluntarily associate or disassociate with anyone they choose, block anyone they want, and (as a last resort) scroll past anything they dont want to read?

Because as a society we have learned to separate the lunatics from the general population. Duh.

Don't like it? Stick to 4chan and parler.

[dpatnod]

Smith-Schooster cancelled a book deal with Hawley too. Do you want us to cry about that poor victim too?

[unknown lions fan]

Because as a society we have learned to separate the lunatics from the general population. Duh.

You are free to participate on such a platform, of course. It doesn't appear that you have much interest in the ideas behind free speech in the first place. Most people don't.

Are you going to be okay with other platforms allowing Orange Jesus to speak to his disciples?

[dpatnod]

It is not about free speach.

Look, you are free to go yell 'Fire!' or 'Bomb' in a crowded theater. Give her a go! You might lose the ability to do it again for a while, but hey. You are free to do it. Then you can tell the judge 'it is all about free speach, your honor man!!!!!'

It is called consequences.

I'm more concerned with our country turning out bumpkins who actually want to pay any attention to that disgusting human turd than about 'platforms'.

[chemiclord]

You are free to participate on such a platform, of course. It doesn't appear that you have much interest in the ideas behind free speech in the first place. Most people don't.

Are you going to be okay with other platforms allowing Orange Jesus to speak to his disciples?

Sure? And they can be responsible for any violence he incites using their platform.

[chemiclord]

It is not about free speach.

Look, you are free to go yell 'Fire!' or 'Bomb' in a crowded theater. Give her a go! You might lose the ability to do it again for a while, but hey. You are free to do it. Then you can tell the judge 'it is all about free speach, your honor man!!!!!'

It is called consequences.

I'm more concerned with our country turning out bumpkins who actually want to pay any attention to that disgusting human turd than about 'platforms'.

That's really what it's about with clowns like ULF. When they say "freedom of speech," what they really mean is "freedom from consequences."

That's what his entire state of anarchy is really about. He wants to do whatever the hell he wants, say whatever the hell he wants, without having to deal with anyone else telling him to be quiet because he has no clue what he's talking about and that he's an ignorant fuckstain. Probably one of his parents told him to shut up when he was a kid and he's been on a thirty year temper tantrum ever since.

[unknown lions fan]

Smith-Schooster cancelled a book deal with Hawley too. Do you want us to cry about that poor victim too?

You'll have to pardon me, the name Hawley is only familiar from something I saw lately. I'm disconnected from politics and teevee news in general.

However, a book publisher is a much different entity than a social media provider. That should be obvious. A book publisher has to publish what they can sell, and even what they "want" to sell. A social media provider benefits by growing usage and traffic.

Even your much-loved Jones and Trump benefitted them in terms of traffic.

For them to forego that economic benefit in favor of advancing a political agenda should raise concern, but not, I guess, if it's aligned with your politics.

[unknown lions fan]

Now, why in any system of justice would Twitter be responsible for something Donald Trump says?

[dpatnod]

You'll have to pardon me, the name Hawley is only familiar from something I saw lately. I'm disconnected from politics and teevee news in general.

However, a book publisher is a much different entity than a social media provider. That should be obvious. A book publisher has to publish what they can sell, and even what they "want" to sell. A social media provider benefits by growing usage and traffic.

Even your much-loved Jones and Trump benefitted them in terms of traffic.

For them to forego that economic benefit in favor of advancing a political agenda should raise concern, but not, I guess, if it's aligned with your politics.

I doubt twitter is dependant on DJT for anything. Why would I be concerned they would lose money in order to be socially responsible.

And BTW, Drumph wants to change section 230 to eliminate protections from social media over user's posts - which would make them EXACTLY like a publisher.

This is a circular conversation. And really stupid.

[unknown lions fan]

And we have our first appearance of the YeLLIng FiRE iN a TheAtEr!1! Knee-jerk programmed response. Want to discuss the real world implications of yelling fire in a theatre?

[chemiclord]

If Twitter publishes your screed to say, I dunno, kill all minorities (not that I'm calling you racist specifically, just for the hypothetical), and your followers actually do it... yeah... Twitter was aiding and abetting your murderous rampage. That's why they are banning him now... because they could be held accountable for the content they host if they can't demonstrate they took reasonable measures to remove it or report it to the proper authorities. Rule 230 protections are actually quite limited in that regard, especially for such a public-facing account like the President's.

[chemiclord]

And we have our first appearance of the YeLLIng FiRE iN a TheAtEr!1! Knee-jerk programmed response. Want to discuss the real world implications of yelling fire in a theatre?

That it's a demonstration of limits on just saying whatever the hell you want regardless of the situation because your right to "free speech" doesn't grant you impunity from consequences if your free speech gets others hurt or killed?

Not sure what's so hard to grasp about that. If you can't see the "real world implications," it's only because you don't want to see them.

[unknown lions fan]

And BTW, Drumph wants to change section 230 to eliminate protections from social media over user's posts - which would make them EXACTLY like a publisher.

Did you just refute my query as to why, in any system of justice, a social media provider should be responsible for what people say...

with a statement that Donald Trump supports it?

Do you not see a disconnect here?