One Pallet of Ballots left to count.
-
But our resident fake conservative loves censorship when it blocks conservative voices.
He like that back in the 1st time Congress held hearing about "big tech" censorship, of the 23 politicians that were banned from social media, only 1 was a liberal.
He loves the fact that "big tech", despite their lies about free speech, refuse to allow discussion that is outside of their world view, while enjoying 230 protection.
He loves that "big tech" acts as a publisher and a platform while, in extremely bad faith, enjoying 230 protections.
He loves that FB and Twitter are far, far more guilty of allowing organizing riots and other crimes, including the worst event in the entire human history; 6 Jan 2021, but Parler got taken down and falsely accused of what liberal tech was actually guilty of.
He claims to be a "conservative libertarian" while telling us that we need to fall, lock step in line with the liberal utopian collective. There isn't a liberal dogma that he won't defend.
-
@raphjd said in One Pallet of Ballots left to count.:
But our resident fake conservative loves censorship when it blocks conservative voices.
He like that back in the 1st time Congress held hearing about "big tech" censorship, of the 23 politicians that were banned from social media, only 1 was a liberal.
He loves the fact that "big tech", despite their lies about free speech, refuse to allow discussion that is outside of their world view, while enjoying 230 protection.
He loves that "big tech" acts as a publisher and a platform while, in extremely bad faith, enjoying 230 protections.
He loves that FB and Twitter are far, far more guilty of allowing organizing riots and other crimes, including the worst event in the entire human history; 6 Jan 2021, but Parler got taken down and falsely accused of what liberal tech was actually guilty of.
He claims to be a "conservative libertarian" while telling us that we need to fall, lock step in line with the liberal utopian collective. There isn't a liberal dogma that he won't defend.
Thanks again for assigning to me a position that I've never taken. This would be akin to my ascribing to you the position that the US Government should take over operations for Twitter, Google, and Facebook.
I am not in favor of censorship, but I am in favor of "individual rights" - even for Corporations.
When Twitter suspended Trump, I was not a fan of the move. I've never said they did the right thing, only that it was within their rights to do it. Sadly, I do not sit on the Board at Twitter, nor am I a stockholder... in fact, I'm not even a subscriber! Thus, I don't think Twitter cares any more than you do about what I think of their action.
However, they are a private enterprise, and are free to (within some limits) run their business how they see fit. And if that means they decline allowing certain people (and it's not based on some protected class) access to their platform, that is within their rights. (That is exactly the same principle as the Supreme Court ruled when they supported the right of the wedding cake shop to decline the customer who wanted a gay wedding cake.)
Your frequent claim of 1st Amendment rights in this case are moot: the 1st Amendment applies to Governments, not corporations (or individuals).
You also like to harp on "230 protections" - which some services (like Twitter, Facebook, and the YouTube part of Google) would need to have in order to be actually viable. Take away the 230 protections, and Twitter would need to hire thousands of "editors" to "review" every post to confirm that they don't break any laws that Twitter might be found in violation of, were it NOT FOR 230 protections....
In such a world, your Twitter post might become public in 2-minutes, 2-hours, or 2-months... depending on how far backed-up they were in their processing. And completely forget YouTube: more video is uploaded in a DAY at YouTube than a single person could watch in some number of YEARS (I've heard that statistic as 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years - all are plausible if you consider how YouTube is growing).You want the Internet? You gotta accept it for what it is: a mix of free-minded, free-spirited individuals in-it-for-the-fun-of-it, and corporations in-it-for-the-money! I can assure you that, if sufficient subscribers dropped Twitter in favor of Trumpster, Twitter would change their tune!
And finally, I will briefly repeat that your argument about Parler is absurd on its face - if for no other reason than because it's alive-and-well - right now - on another platform. One of thousands of available platforms that are in competition with AWS. Parler was removed from AWS the same way HUNDREDS of AWS clients are "de-platformed" every day - for being in consistent and repeated violation of their Terms of Service. Parler just cried louder than the others - and for no reason but the publicity. IF the de-platforming had come as a complete surprise (it wasn't), it might have taken their tech team 48-hours to have transferred everything to another platform. Depending on how much data was involved, it might just as easily have been done in 2-4 hours (yes, two-to-four, not 24). When AWS de-platforms you, they disconnect your systems from the Internet - they don't confiscate your data!
Your repeated claims - disproven each time - that their is a mass conspiracy focused solely on Trump is tired and overworn. Find a new song... I'm tired of this one.
-
@bi4smooth Personally, I'm glad they went on a censorship rampage, because it shows exactly who they are, and they almost had a complete monopoly, but because Trump forced them to jump the gun and show their hand, they are exposed and other platforms quickly filled the gap that quite possibly wouldn't have been possible a few years down the road. You say you despise them, but if it weren't for Trump, you wouldn't even know who the enemy really was.
-
Ah, you are one of those "corporations have human rights" people.
You are against cancel culture, but you aren't really upset when it happens to people you don't like, such as Trump.
I know that the 1st Amendment only applies to the government. DUH.
That being said, your beloved liberal social media constantly lie about free speech. Twitter, FB, and YouTube have all said that "free speech" is a human right. Of course, what they won't say is that they really mean it's their "human right" to have their platform in every country and they get to decide what we the scum get to say.
Parler is allowed in Nigeria, but not FB and Twitter. Your beloved liberals hate this.
Your side hates the Hobby Lobby ruling, but then uses it to say that corporations they like have human rights globally.
-
@raphjd said in One Pallet of Ballots left to count.:
Ah, you are one of those "corporations have human rights" people.
You are against cancel culture, but you aren't really upset when it happens to people you don't like, such as Trump.
I know that the 1st Amendment only applies to the government. DUH.
That being said, your beloved liberal social media constantly lie about free speech. Twitter, FB, and YouTube have all said that "free speech" is a human right. Of course, what they won't say is that they really mean it's their "human right" to have their platform in every country and they get to decide what we the scum get to say.
Parler is allowed in Nigeria, but not FB and Twitter. Your beloved liberals hate this.
Your side hates the Hobby Lobby ruling, but then uses it to say that corporations they like have human rights globally.
You must be illiterate. I quite literally said, just a few posts above, that I didn't agree with their censoring Trump.
I don't believe in "situational ethics" - which is why, as a pro-lifer, I believe that "exceptions for rape and incest" are ridiculous! Since when do we sentence children to death for the crimes of their fathers?
The person who seems to be wishy-washy about "freedom" here is you: you love it when it helps your side, you decry it when it hurts.
-
I have been extremely consistent in my beliefs, except when nuance is needed.
Your beloved liberals scream that Trump doesn't deserve what even they call "human rights".
Those same liberals, that you love so much, play both sides of 230 (publisher and platform) while enjoying its protections. You support their fuckery on this topic because they punish and suppress conservative voices.
You also support businesses having "human rights", but I'll bet you don't support a rusty shovel having the same human rights. Neither are human but in your bigotry, you support one having human rights and not the other.
-
@raphjd Youtube is 90% a PUBLIC Venue. Twitter is mostly, and Facebook is more private, because I can't see anything on there without logging in, which I don't have an account so I don't. So I'll agree that Facebook has the most immunity and leeway as far as what it can do, but public venues are different from private.
