Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on May 05, 2021, 11:15:34 AM
-
I know our resident Trumptards would like me to ignore any negative news about THE TRAITOR so you idiots can just pretend this is a positive story
It actually really is a positive story for the majority of people in this country
-
Are we supposed to be surprised? All leftists.
You always try to exploit the obvious 😂
-
Nobody should applaud the banning of free speech.
-
I know our resident Trumptards would like me to ignore any negative news about THE TRAITOR so you idiots can just pretend this is a positive story
It actually really is a positive story for the majority of people in this country
you should never have been born. I guess your Pa shot in the wrong hole.
your mother was no doubt a whore. :)
-
Nobody should applaud the banning of free speech.
Let’s not forget who started this thread....a communist
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/facebook-supreme-court-packed-with-anti-trump-progressive-figures/
https://www.oversightboard.com/news/announcing-the-first-members-of-the-oversight-board/
It’s not like Trump is in panic mode. His new site is allowed to share to FB and Twitter :-*
-
Nobody should applaud the banning of free speech.
no one is banning his speech
he can say whatever he wants on plenty of other platforms or on many many media outlets
no one has a Constitutional right to access to Facebook or Twitter or any other social media platform
they are allowed to make rules of conduct and ban those that don't follow the rule
You know this
-
you should never have been born. I guess your Pa shot in the wrong hole.
your mother was no doubt a whore. :)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=323616.0
-
no one is banning his speech
he can say whatever he wants on plenty of other platforms or on many many media outlets
no one has a Constitutional right to access to Facebook or Twitter or any other social media platform
they are allowed to make rules of conduct and ban those that don't follow the rule
You know this
I do know this.
However, I believe big tech is a bigger potential problem than whoever is in the White House, and I don't like platforms having that type of power.
Regardless of political affiliation, this should be a concern.
-
I do know this.
However, I believe big tech is a bigger potential problem than whoever is in the White House, and I don't like platforms having that type of power.
Regardless of political affiliation, this should be a concern.
All platforms have the right to set limits on the conduct of their customers
This goes for virtually all businesses and not just online platforms
Even this site occassionally enforces it's own code of conduct
-
I know our resident Trumptards would like me to ignore any negative news about THE TRAITOR so you idiots can just pretend this is a positive story
It actually really is a positive story for the majority of people in this country
How is this a positive story?
-
How is this a positive story?
read my second sentence and see if you can crack the mystery
-
All platforms have the right to set limits on the conduct of their customers
This goes for virtually all businesses and not just online platforms
Even this site occassionally enforces it's own code of conduct
Yes, but then situations arise like before the election where they banned the NY Post and The Admin's press secretary over a story the presumed to be misinformation, but was actually true.
They can therefore manipulate content based on a loosely defined set of criteria that can be morphed to fit their agenda.
I think there's merit into considering them publishers instead of platform for this, and increasing their liability potential.
-
no one is banning his speech
he can say whatever he wants on plenty of other platforms or on many many media outlets
no one has a Constitutional right to access to Facebook or Twitter or any other social media platform
they are allowed to make rules of conduct and ban those that don't follow the rule
You know this
This is exactly why Republicans are pushing to reform Sec 230. Before Biden was elected this was a bipartisan issue, now that it’s basically only conservatives getting banned (including myself on Twitter even with my measly 7k followers) they’re acting as an editorial board and not really a social media platform....this is where the First Amendment would enter.
-
Yes, but then situations arise like before the election where they banned the NY Post and The Admin's press secretary over a story the presumed to be misinformation, but was actually true.
They can therefore manipulate content based on a loosely defined set of criteria that can be morphed to fit their agenda.
I think there's merit into considering them publishers instead of platform for this, and increasing their liability potential.
Conservatives like to complain about things that they imagine that don't actually happen ...like voter fraud and facebook censoring conservatives
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again-that-facebook-doesnt-censor-conservatives/
-
This is exactly why Republicans are pushing to reform Sec 230. Before Biden was elected this was a bipartisan issue, now that it’s basically only conservatives getting banned (including myself on Twitter even with my measly 7k followers) they’re acting as an editorial board and not really a social media platform....this is where the First Amendment would enter.
what rule did you break that got you banned from Twitter
be honest
-
what rule did you break that got you banned from Twitter
be honest
I honestly don’t know and no explanation was given. This was probably 2 years ago and I never went back.
-
Conservatives like to complain about things that they imagine that don't actually happen ...like voter fraud and facebook censoring conservatives
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again-that-facebook-doesnt-censor-conservatives/
I am an independent with certain conservative, and certain liberal values.
And I posted an example of something that did actually happen.
-
I honestly don’t know and no explanation was given. This was probably 2 years ago and I never went back.
were you warned
btw - I still don't know why anyone has Twitter.
-
were you warned
btw - I still don't know why anyone has Twitter.
Legit answer - it's good for pro sports info and exercise stuff.
Lots of good info on diet and such....good community for people who want to lift as they get older.
Can share some good folks to follow if you want.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/facebook-supreme-court-packed-with-anti-trump-progressive-figures/
https://www.oversightboard.com/news/announcing-the-first-members-of-the-oversight-board/
It’s not like Trump is in panic mode. His new site is allowed to share to FB and Twitter :-*
why does he want to share to twitter and fb, isnt it just full of commies anyway?
-
Yes, but then situations arise like before the election where they banned the NY Post and The Admin's press secretary over a story the presumed to be misinformation, but was actually true.
They can therefore manipulate content based on a loosely defined set of criteria that can be morphed to fit their agenda.
I think there's merit into considering them publishers instead of platform for this, and increasing their liability potential.
what was the story and are they still banned?
-
Posting pics/videos of ISIS heads cutting was okay by Facebook community standards ................
-
what was the story and are they still banned?
I believe you would know it was the Biden laptop story.
And, they are not still banned.
But they were up until the election happened, which is all that mattered in that context.
-
Nobody should applaud the banning of free speech.
LIBERALS don't care about free speech unless it affects them.
-
I believe you would know it was the Biden laptop story.
And, they are not still banned.
But they were up until the election happened, which is all that mattered in that context.
I had absolutely no idea what you were referring to and I still don't know what specifics about the story got them banned...such as if what they said was in fact false or violated some other rule (you didn't say who banned them but I assume you meand FB?)
but if they aren't banned any more then it's a non-issue
BTW - the POTUS press secretary doesn't need FB or Twitter and certainly can't claim her voice is being stilfed
She the PRESS SECRETARY. She can call a press conference any time that she wants and anything she says will be reported all over the various forms of media
This is what I could find and I have no problem with this:
Twitter said it was limiting the article’s spread due to questions about “the origins of the materials” included in the article, which contained material supposedly pulled from a computer that had been left by Hunter Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019. Twitter policies prohibit “directly distribut[ing] content obtained through hacking that contains private information”.
The company further explained the decision in a series of tweets on Wednesday, saying some of the images in the article contained personal and private information. Twitter’s policy against posting hacked material was established in 2018. Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, said the company’s communication about the decision to limit the article’s spread was “not great”, saying the team should have shared more context publicly.
Facebook, meanwhile, placed restrictions on linking to the article, saying there were questions about its validity. “This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation,” said a Facebook spokesperson, Andy Stone.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/14/facebook-twitter-new-york-post-hunter-biden
Both McEnany and the New York Post have a history of making false statements/publishing false stories
As recently as last week it was revealed that the NY Post published a false story about VP Harris
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-reporter-resigned-says-ordered-false-story-migrant-2021-4
-
I had absolutely no idea what you were referring to and I still don't know what specifics about the story got them banned...such as if what they said was in fact false or violated some other rule (you didn't say who banned them but I assume you meand FB?)
but if they aren't banned any more then it's a non-issue
BTW - the POTUS press secretary doesn't need FB or Twitter and certainly can't claim her voice is being stilfed
She the PRESS SECRETARY. She can call a press conference any time that she wants and anything she says will be reported all over the various forms of media
This is what I could find and I have no problem with this:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/14/facebook-twitter-new-york-post-hunter-biden
Both McEnany and the New York Post have a history of making false statements/publishing false stories
As recently as last week it was revealed that the NY Post published a false story about VP Harris
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-reporter-resigned-says-ordered-false-story-migrant-2021-4
Yes, that is the story, but I meant Twitter.
But it does matter silencing the 4th largest newspaper in the world on one of the world's biggest platforms a week before the election.
There are polls that show that up to 35% of Biden voters never even heard of the laptop story and that 13% of that 35% would not have voted for him had they known. That changes an election.
Even Dorsey has admitted they made a mistake.
But it shows the unchecked power they have. If they can do it to the major media outlets, the President, etc, they can do it to anyone.
I know Democrats and the media are thrilled Trump is out and I get that, but they shouldn't celebrate abandoning their principles to accomplish it.
They are too many potential impacts down the road.
This should be a bipartisan issue (and it was until Trump).
-
LIBERALS don't care about free speech unless it affects them.
That's' not what free speech means
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-crackdown-accounts-content-trump-communications-platform
-
Libturd platforms ban their no.1 enemy, and their bigegst threat which they are afraid of w/ massive amounts of TDS.
Youre proud of that Straw?
its their way of ending arguments, even when fats are put in front of them, call someone racist and click "block".
Real weak minded retards.
-
Libturd platforms ban their no.1 enemy, and their bigegst threat which they are afraid of w/ massive amounts of TDS.
Youre proud of that Straw?
its their way of ending arguments, even when fats are put in front of them, call someone racist and click "block".
Real weak minded retards.
To extrapolate on my points above, if you asked a traditional liberal in the past how the felt about FB or Twitter, you could get the answer that they felt the company were fascist evil big corporation greedy fuckwits who need to be stopped.
But due to TDS, these are the entities they want to give even more power to.
No consistency.
-
From The Desk Of Donald J Trump or whatever his newest name is.. has been banned by Twitter already. LOL. That didn't last long.
;D
-
From The Desk Of Donald J Trump or whatever his newest name is.. has been banned by Twitter already. LOL. That didn't last long.
;D
It’s no big deal.
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT LET JOE BIDEN ANSWER UNSCRIPTED OR IMPROMPTU QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS.
The Biden administration has a gag order on the President of the United States.
You can’t make this liberal stupidity up.
-
Yes, that is the story, but I meant Twitter.
But it does matter silencing the 4th largest newspaper in the world on one of the world's biggest platforms a week before the election.
There are polls that show that up to 35% of Biden voters never even heard of the laptop story and that 13% of that 35% would not have voted for him had they known. That changes an election.
Even Dorsey has admitted they made a mistake.
But it shows the unchecked power they have. If they can do it to the major media outlets, the President, etc, they can do it to anyone.
I know Democrats and the media are thrilled Trump is out and I get that, but they shouldn't celebrate abandoning their principles to accomplish it.
They are too many potential impacts down the road.
This should be a bipartisan issue (and it was until Trump).
They are a fucking newspaper and they also have a website so how exactly were they "silenced"
Same goes for McAney. She can hold an press conference and get around the world attention. Kind of hard to claim she was silenced
did you look at the article for the explanation of why they had a problem with that story. It clearly violated their stated guidelines
-
Social media or not he’s still at the top of the news cycle lol
-
They are a fucking newspaper and they also have a website so how exactly were they "silenced"
Same goes for McAney. She can hold an press conference and get around the world attention. Kind of hard to claim she was silenced
did you look at the article for the explanation of why they had a problem with that story. It clearly violated their stated guidelines
Again, Dorsey admitted it was wrong to ban.
And 35% of Biden voters were unware of the story.
In other words, it's entirely plausible big tech and the media altered the election.
That is a horrid precedent to set.
-
Again, Dorsey admitted it was wrong to ban.
And 35% of Biden voters were unware of the story.
In other words, it's entirely plausible big tech and the media altered the election.
That is a horrid precedent to set.
Gee, so many Americans without internet connection !!!.
-
Gee, so many Americans without internet connection !!!.
It's more like so many Americans use single sources for news, and when that news source is a propaganda arm for a certain party instead of practicing real journalism, the truth gets hidden.
-
Nobody should applaud the banning of free speech.
Facebook is a business. As such, it is not obligated to allow folks to be or remain users of their product. Being a Facebook user is a revocable privilege. Banning or suspending someone has nothing to do with free speech.
-
Again, Dorsey admitted it was wrong to ban.
And 35% of Biden voters were unware of the story.
In other words, it's entirely plausible big tech and the media altered the election.
That is a horrid precedent to set.
If you read past the headline you'll see there was a bit more to it than just that
“It was literally just a process error. This was not against them in any particular way,” Dorsey told the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“If we remove a violation we require people to correct it,” he added. “We changed that based on their to wanting to delete that tweet, which I completely agree with. I see it. But it is something we learn.”
Twitter demanded The Post delete six tweets that linked to stories based on files from the abandoned laptop of President Biden’s son. Twitter backed down after the paper refused to remove the posts — a development The Post celebrated on its Oct. 31 front page with the headline “FREE BIRD!”
“Their entire account to be blocked for two weeks by a mistake seems like a really big mistake,” Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, told Dorsey. “Was anyone held accountable in your censoring department for that mistake?”
“Well, we don’t have a censoring department,” the bearded and newly bald-headed tech exec replied.
When Scalise interjected to ask who made the decision “to block their account for two weeks,” Dorsey claimed, “We didn’t block their account for two weeks.”
“We required them to delete the tweet and then they could tweet it again,” he said. “They didn’t take that action, so we corrected it for them.”
https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-total-mistake/
-
Facebook is a business. As such, it is not obligated to allow folks to be or remain users of their product. Being a Facebook user is a revocable privilege. Banning or suspending someone has nothing to do with free speech.
Did you know that if FB doesn't like the content of a message you send via FB Messenger, they'll block it?
-
Did you know that if FB doesn't like the content of a message you send via FB Messenger, they'll block it?
Makes sense. Glad someone is checking for spam too much of it gets though.
Facebook Help Team
"If you've been blocked from sending messages on Facebook, it may be because you sent a lot of messages recently or people reported your messages as unwelcome. Make sure to use your real name and picture to help the people you're messaging recognize you. This block is temporary."
MY CHAT IS BLOCK ? | Facebook Help Community | Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com ›
"Your messenger is temporary blocked due to the violation of the Facebook community terms(mostly due to sending spam messages or sending too much (many) messages)."
-
Makes sense. Glad someone is checking for spam too much of it gets though.
Facebook Help Team
"If you've been blocked from sending messages on Facebook, it may be because you sent a lot of messages recently or people reported your messages as unwelcome. Make sure to use your real name and picture to help the people you're messaging recognize you. This block is temporary."
MY CHAT IS BLOCK ? | Facebook Help Community | Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com ›
"Your messenger is temporary blocked due to the violation of the Facebook community terms(mostly due to sending spam messages or sending too much (many) messages)."
I didn’t ask if you still drowned small, furry animals. I asked if you knew that, if FB doesn't like the content of a message you send via FB Messenger, they'll block it?
Did you know?
-
Facebook is a business. As such, it is not obligated to allow folks to be or remain users of their product. Being a Facebook user is a revocable privilege. Banning or suspending someone has nothing to do with free speech.
This point was already discussed earlier in the thread.
-
Conservatives like to complain about things that they imagine that don't actually happen ...like voter fraud and facebook censoring conservatives
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again-that-facebook-doesnt-censor-conservatives/
So you’re denying this is and has happened?
Just to be clear. Even though Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Pichai have been called to testify in front of congress multiple times and lied...got it
-
I didn’t ask if you still drowned small, furry animals. I asked if you knew that, if FB doesn't like the content of a message you send via FB Messenger, they'll block it?
Did you know?
Actually, I didn't know. But now that I do it makes sense and I have no problem with it.
I have been a zoophilist my entire life.....no small, furry animals have been drown by me.
-
Actually, I didn't know. But now that I do it makes sense and I have no problem with it.
I have been a zoophilist my entire life.....no small, furry animals have been drown by me.
So you have no problem with a messenger company reading your messages? Do you feel the same way about your cell phone conversations?
-
Facebook is a business. As such, it is not obligated to allow folks to be or remain users of their product. Being a Facebook user is a revocable privilege. Banning or suspending someone has nothing to do with free speech.
what a load of horse shit. ::)
-
I do know this.
However, I believe big tech is a bigger potential problem than whoever is in the White House, and I don't like platforms having that type of power.
Regardless of political affiliation, this should be a concern.
What are the options? Regulate social media? If the roles were reversed would arguements for and against this just switch sides?
-
What are the options? Regulate social media? If the roles were reversed would arguements for and against this just switch sides?
Not sure of the options, and I don't like the government getting involved unless absolutely necessary. It would be hypocritical of me to say I wanted them regulated. Perhaps something like requiring transparency around what content they edit?
But, for starters, they can start by getting their rules in order:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/09/facebook-oversight-board-member-says-site-wields-too-much-power/
A co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board that temporarily extended the ban against former President Donald Trump said Sunday that the social media giant’s rules governing content are in “shambles” and “not transparent” — and the company “exercises too much power.”
“Facebook exercises too much power. They are arbitrary. They are inconsistent and it is the job of the oversight board to try to bring some discipline to that process,” he said.
“So what we have done is to identify ways in which Facebook has been nontransparent, ways in which they’ve been arbitrary and trying to nudge them toward a more free speech, free expression, friendly environment,” McConnell added.
-
Not sure of the options, and I don't like the government getting involved unless absolutely necessary. It would be hypocritical of me to say I wanted them regulated. Perhaps something like requiring transparency around what content they edit?
But, for starters, they can start by getting their rules in order:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/09/facebook-oversight-board-member-says-site-wields-too-much-power/
Requiring transparency around what they edit is difficult because much of the decision can be subjective. FB is inconsistent with its policies in my industry.
I am not sure why it seems some people are saying this is restricting free speech.
-
Requiring transparency around what they edit is difficult because much of the decision can be subjective. FB is inconsistent with its policies in my industry.
I am not sure why it seems some people are saying this is restricting free speech.
try writing any opinions against mass migration or Globalism. aint rocket science mate.
-
Requiring transparency around what they edit is difficult because much of the decision can be subjective. FB is inconsistent with its policies in my industry.
I am not sure why it seems some people are saying this is restricting free speech.
It's restricting speech because the platforms are so enormous and have such widespread reach, and like mentioned, the inconsistencies of enforcement make it worse.
It the purest, technical format, it's not "restricting free speech".
-
It's restricting speech because the platforms are so enormous and have such widespread reach, and like mentioned, the inconsistencies of enforcement make it worse.
It the purest, technical format, it's not "restricting free speech".
Then that's a discussion point. Does a social media platform have to be regulated when they reach enough people?
-
try writing any opinions against mass migration or Globalism. aint rocket science mate.
I am a big fan of saying what every you want for the most part and people making up their own minds doing their own research to verify it, etc.
But it's a private enterprise that has the right to publish what it decides. If the owners of a social media outlet want to slant right or left, it's their choice.
The market should correct itself, shouldn't it?
-
I am a big fan of saying what every you want for the most part and people making up their own minds doing their own research to verify it, etc.
But it's a private enterprise that has the right to publish what it decides. If the owners of a social media outlet want to slant right or left, it's their choice.
The market should correct itself, shouldn't it?
Difficult to do when playforms offering different points of view are considered hate speech and removed from app stores and internet providers. ;)
-
Difficult to do when playforms offering different points of view are considered hate speech and removed from app stores and internet providers. ;)
Aren't app stores and internet providers independent businesses free to choose what they want to sell or publish?
-
Aren't app stores and internet providers independent businesses free to choose what they want to sell or publish?
Absolutely! People just don't get it until someone comes into their place of business as starts shooting of their mouth. Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want. It does not give you the right to say it anywhere you want.
-
Absolutely! People just don't get it until someone comes into their place of business as starts shooting of their mouth. Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want. It does not give you the right to say it anywhere you want.
I think this discussion/debate is interesting because it seems to be an instance where regulation would have prevented a conservative politician from being banned whereas most conservatives are against regulation.
Grape's point is good because tech giants may weld too much power.
If FB doesn't want to be consistent nor transparent in their decision making do they have to be? If people don't like what they do, they can always go back to Myspace? lol
Is the market strong enough to correct itself?
-
I think this discussion/debate is interesting because it seems to be an instance where regulation would have prevented a conservative politician from being banned whereas most conservatives are against regulation.
Grape's point is good because tech giants may weld too much power.
If FB doesn't want to be consistent nor transparent in their decision making do they have to be? If people don't like what they do, they can always go back to Myspace? lol
Is the market strong enough to correct itself?
Tech giants only have as much power as people give them and we give them a lot. Amazon is consuming all other retail. COVID has served to boost their sales as if they needed a boost.
Does Myspace still exist?
-
Aren't app stores and internet providers independent businesses free to choose what they want to sell or publish?
Sure but what's the alternative? If the major tech companies all lean left we have a distorted view of reality and a false perception of how society actually views certain topics/ideas.
-
Sure but what's the alternative? If the major tech companies all lean left we have a distorted view of reality and a false perception of how society actually views certain topics/ideas.
What's your theory on why major tech companies lean left?
-
What's your theory on why major tech companies lean left?
Political influence and money. Not hard to figure out really.
-
Sure but what's the alternative? If the major tech companies all lean left we have a distorted view of reality and a false perception of how society actually views certain topics/ideas.
If there was a market for a social media platform for conservatives, ran by conservatives, and profitable it would exist....I would think.
-
If there was a market for a social media platform for conservatives, ran by conservatives, and profitable it would exist....I would think.
There was Parler, but the large platforms wouldn't host it.
Too much power.
-
I am a big fan of saying what every you want for the most part and people making up their own minds doing their own research to verify it, etc.
But it's a private enterprise that has the right to publish what it decides. If the owners of a social media outlet want to slant right or left, it's their choice.
The market should correct itself, shouldn't it?
That´s the point dummy, as long as it´s their political point of view. not free speech is it?
-
That´s the point dummy, as long as it´s their political point of view. not free speech is it?
Not too sure what you are saying here exactly.
Trump's free speech is not being restricted by the government.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As a private business, a social media outlet is not obligated to publish anything a user decides they want to publish.
-
There was Parler, but the large platforms wouldn't host it.
Too much power.
So Apple and Andriod are refusing to host it?
Looks like it can be used on Android.
Typically, I would think these are business decisions with calculated fallout.
-
So Apple and Andriod are refusing to host it?
Looks like it can be used on Android.
Typically, I would think these are business decisions with calculated fallout.
I believe Apple and Google would not host it.
However, fully admit I could be wrong and didn't research.
-
I believe Apple and Google would not host it.
However, fully admit I could be wrong and didn't research.
In April this year Apple let Parler back in the app store.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/tech/apple-parler-app-store/index.html
Just checked and I believe it is also available through Google Play. But, I did not download it. Some sources indicated it was not available on Google Play because it had not submitted an app that complies with Google guidelines.
-
So Apple and Andriod are refusing to host it?
Looks like it can be used on Android.
Typically, I would think these are business decisions with calculated fallout.
Yes they did, both removed the app and I believe the servers it was hosted on also dropped them.
-
What's your theory on why major tech companies lean left?
Theory???
Lean??
What a dumbass ::)
-
Not too sure what you are saying here exactly.
Trump's free speech is not being restricted by the government.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As a private business, a social media outlet is not obligated to publish anything a user decides they want to publish.
never mind dummy ??? ::)
-
never mind dummy ??? ::)
Still unclear about what you are saying.
Trumps free speech restricted or no?
Private companies deciding not to publish or give a mic to someone is bad or good?
Or do you just call people dummy who won’t agree or question you because you can’t express an intelligent or coherent point?
-
Still unclear about what you are saying.
Trumps free speech restricted or no?
Private companies deciding not to publish or give a mic to someone is bad or good?
Or do you just call people dummy who won’t agree or question you because you can’t express an intelligent or coherent point?
I think the discussion goes to is fb a publisher that can be held responsible for what is posted or is fb just a platform? I didn't follow along too closely but there was a section 230(?) that people were talking about that protects platforms and not publishers. Someone more interested in that topic would have to explain.
-
I think the discussion goes to is fb a publisher that can be held responsible for what is posted or is fb just a platform? I didn't follow along too closely but there was a section 230(?) that people were talking about that protects platforms and not publishers. Someone more interested in that topic would have to explain.
Section 230 from Wiki: Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
I just think it's the nature of the beast here. SM platforms can censor what they want. An SM platform is essentially a forum.
-
Still unclear about what you are saying.
Trumps free speech restricted or no?
Private companies deciding not to publish or give a mic to someone is bad or good?
Or do you just call people dummy who won’t agree or question you because you can’t express an intelligent or coherent point?
Just a Dummy who is Dumb ???
-
Just a Dummy who is Dumb ???
SNORE
-
Section 230 from Wiki: Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.
I just think it's the nature of the beast here. SM platforms can censor what they want. An SM platform is essentially a forum.
I think there was a discussion about a publisher vs a platform.