Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Options
1…79111213

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    A moot point is something that doesn't matter.

    Pretty much like your conspiracy theory.

    Have a good one.


    Thanks for your time.


    Sweet dreams and hence avaunt.


  • Options
    #243
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Repeating the same over and over again does not make a conspiracy. The fact that Parler didn’t keep to their agreements is the reason suppliers removed their services. Same with Trump in different social media platforms.

    In conclusion, there is no conspiracy here no matter how many times you say it. There is just you not wanting to face reality. Trump and Parler debunked it themselves by not adhering to their agreements. The agreements are available online and may be worth reading to assist you understanding the reality.


  • Options
    #244
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,710 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    NSAman wrote: »
    That to me is the prime issue.

    Closing down any speech that "breaches the terms and conditions" of our platform.

    These platforms in the future are going to face larger and larger issues if they insist on being the thought police for generations now and in the future.

    There's always a few infractions, bans, threads being locked and posts/threads being deleted on boards. What are the larger and larger issues that boards have and will face, and how do you feel about boards and the kids being thought police? Do you believe boards.ie is double plus good?


  • Options
    #245
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    So what do you think these guys with ready made zip tie hand cuffs were going to do in the chambers of the Capitol?

    There were members of the armed mob intent on harming democraticly elected members of government in the Capitol building. The whole mob were there to overturn a democratic election. That is an attempted coup!

    The only person your are fooling with your crap here is yourself. Has Boards become your new place to hangout since Parler screwed up their own service?


    You're giving this mob far too much credit. Their bark is worse than their bite. Every gobshite in the US is armed. Doesn't mean they have the balls to use their guns against people who can shoot back.


  • Options
    #246
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    You're giving this mob far too much credit. Their bark is worse than their bite. Every gobshite in the US is armed. Doesn't mean they have the balls to use their guns against people who can shoot back.

    You are oblivious to reality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Double post


  • Options
    #248
    truth and logic
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭truth and logic


    I agree that Boards also suffers from this same problem.

    Boards routinely removes opinions that are perfectly legal. I know Boards has the right to do this under current law but the current law could be wrong.

    If Boards was to grow big enough that a Boards account was essential to life then it wouldn't be appropriate that users could be banned for arbitrary or unfair reasons.

    Twitter it seems is big enough to be esssential for life now and as such it shouldn't be legal for Twitter to ban users for poor reasons. This is a political position that you may or may not agree with.


    Amazon Web Services definitely shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on content on their customers. That is silly and un-necessary. It's like an electricity company having the final say on what your business can and cannot do, because they sell you electricity.


  • Options
    #249
    EyesClosed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    truth and logic wrote: »
    I agree that Boards also suffers from this same problem.

    Boards routinely removes opinions that are perfectly legal. I know Boards has the right to do this under current law but the current law could be wrong.

    If Boards was to grow big enough that a Boards account was essential to life then it wouldn't be appropriate that users could be banned for arbitrary or unfair reasons.

    Twitter it seems is big enough to be esssential for life now and as such it shouldn't be legal for Twitter to ban users for poor reasons. This is a political position that you may or may not agree with.


    Amazon Web Services definitely shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on content on their customers. That is silly and un-necessary. It's like an electricity company having the final say on what your business can and cannot do, because they sell you electricity.

    Twitter is in no way life essential


  • Options
    #250
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    truth and logic wrote: »
    I agree that Boards also suffers from this same problem.

    Boards routinely removes opinions that are perfectly legal. I know Boards has the right to do this under current law but the current law could be wrong.

    If Boards was to grow big enough that a Boards account was essential to life then it wouldn't be appropriate that users could be banned for arbitrary or unfair reasons.

    Twitter it seems is big enough to be esssential for life now and as such it shouldn't be legal for Twitter to ban users for poor reasons. This is a political position that you may or may not agree with.


    Amazon Web Services definitely shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on content on their customers. That is silly and un-necessary. It's like an electricity company having the final say on what your business can and cannot do, because they sell you electricity.

    Twitter is not essential for life. Food, water, and shelter are essential for life.

    Users on Boards agree to adhere to terms and conditions and get banned if they don’t and have content removed. If something is unlawful, then it is unlawful, and it would be illegal for Boards to allow it on their website.

    What part of adhering to an agreement do you not understand?


  • Options
    #251
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    truth and logic wrote: »
    I agree that Boards also suffers from this same problem.

    Boards routinely removes opinions that are perfectly legal. I know Boards has the right to do this under current law but the current law could be wrong.
    Opinions such as...?
    truth and logic wrote: »
    Amazon Web Services definitely shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on content on their customers. That is silly and un-necessary. It's like an electricity company having the final say on what your business can and cannot do, because they sell you electricity.
    But this analogy is simply ridiculous.
    Being able to post racist rants is not an essential service.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    truth and logic
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭truth and logic


    I'm sorry, but I don't recall saying anything about racist rants.

    I understand completely about agreements and about sticking to them. I also understand that agreements can be one sided, unfair, domineering, or coercive.

    Amazon Web Services are wrong to be making judgements calls on content. AWS should prefer if they don't have to vet their customers as it's easier for them.


  • Options
    #253
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    truth and logic wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I don't recall saying anything about racist rants.

    I understand completely about agreements and about sticking to them. I also understand that agreements can be one sided, unfair, domineering, or coercive.

    Amazon Web Services are wrong to be making judgements calls on content. AWS should prefer if they don't have to vet their customers as it's easier for them.

    No one forced Parler to agree to the terms and conditions. No one forced Trump to either. Just like nobody forced them to break the agreements.


  • Options
    #254
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    truth and logic wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I don't recall saying anything about racist rants.
    Yes, I know. You were asked about this before, but you ignored the question because it highlights the absurdity of your stance.

    Parler was full of racist vitirol.
    Posting racist vitirol and insane conspiracy theories are not an essential service.
    It's at best a entertainment luxury
    truth and logic wrote: »
    Amazon Web Services are wrong to be making judgements calls on content.
    According to what standards and laws?


  • Options
    #255
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Looks like the real culprits here are pesky Amazon employees.

    https://twitter.com/AMZNforClimate/status/1347799256883552259




    Yeah, those well treated Amazon employees would do anything for their glorious leader Jeff Bezos.


  • Options
    #256
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Repeating the same over and over again does not make a conspiracy. The fact that Parler didn’t keep to their agreements is the reason suppliers removed their services. Same with Trump in different social media platforms.

    In conclusion, there is no conspiracy here no matter how many times you say it. There is just you not wanting to face reality. Trump and Parler debunked it themselves by not adhering to their agreements. The agreements are available online and may be worth reading to assist you understanding the reality.




    You can believe that Parler were crushed because they violated hosting terms. I don't believe it.


    But you are going to see more of this kind of thing. Whatever you feel about the destruction of Parler it has exposed the tech giants influence over policy and that should scare you.



    9/11 spawned the US PATRIOT ACT (actually it was written before 9/11) which certailed civil liberties.


    Now 6/1 has spawned the HR 4192 which is basically a partiot act on steroids. I basically means that anybody can be charged with domestic terrorism. It hasn't been enacted into law yet but it's only a matter of time.


    Read some of the bill for yourself from this 2019 draft:


    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4192/text


  • Options
    #257
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    You can believe that Parler were crushed because they violated hosting terms. I don't believe it.


    But you are going to see more of this kind of thing. Whatever you feel about the destruction of Parler it has exposed the tech giants influence over policy and that should scare you.



    9/11 spawned the US PATRIOT ACT (actually it was written before 9/11) which certailed civil liberties.


    Now 6/1 has spawned the HR 4192 which is basically a partiot act on steroids. I basically means that anybody can be charged with domestic terrorism. It hasn't been enacted into law yet but it's only a matter of time.


    Read some of the bill for yourself from this 2019 draft:


    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4192/text

    How did the attempted coup in 2021 spawn a bill proposed in 2019? Did someone have a time machine? :confused:


  • Options
    #258
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,457 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    How did the attempted coup in 2021 spawn a bill proposed in 2019? Did someone have a time machine? :confused:

    This is where we go down the rabbit hole

    They "planned" this and that's why they had the laws already to go :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #259
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    This is where we go down the rabbit hole

    They "planned" this and that's why they had the laws already to go :rolleyes:

    I’d agree that Trump and his followers planned the attack on The Capitol. So if the domestic terrorism laws are enacted, it is upon them. :D


  • Options
    #260
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    So what do you think these guys with ready made zip tie hand cuffs were going to do in the chambers of the Capitol?

    There were members of the armed mob intent on harming democraticly elected members of government in the Capitol building. The whole mob were there to overturn a democratic election. That is an attempted coup!

    The only person your are fooling with your crap here is yourself. Has Boards become your new place to hangout since Parler screwed up their own service?


    You don't have to take my word for it.



    Top military strategist Edward Luttwak, now advising the Pentagon on cyber-war, tweeted, “nobody pulls a coup during the day”. That was just “a show, people expressing emotions”, an actually faux coup that did not involve arson or widespread looting, and relatively little violence (compare it to Maidan 2014): talk about “insurrectionists” walking inside the Capitol respecting the velvet ropes.


  • Options
    #261
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    How did the attempted coup in 2021 spawn a bill proposed in 2019? Did someone have a time machine? :confused:


    Wasn't the USA PATRIOT ACT written before 9/11?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    talk about “insurrectionists” walking inside the Capitol respecting the velvet ropes.
    Respecting the ropes...
    Beating a cop to death with a fire extinguisher...

    Or was that anitfa?
    Or was he a crisis actor?


  • Options
    #263
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    You don't have to take my word for it.



    Top military strategist Edward Luttwak, now advising the Pentagon on cyber-war, tweeted, “nobody pulls a coup during the day”. That was just “a show, people expressing emotions”, an actually faux coup that did not involve arson or widespread looting, and relatively little violence (compare it to Maidan 2014): talk about “insurrectionists” walking inside the Capitol respecting the velvet ropes.

    Such bull crap and you know it. There was murder involved. Plans to take hostages as I identified too with the cuffs!


  • Options
    #264
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    I’d agree that Trump and his followers planned the attack on The Capitol. So if the domestic terrorism laws are enacted, it is upon them. :D




    The thing is FT, the domestic terrorism laws will apply very broadly and very vaguely.


    If a bunch of nurses strike and march for better conditions they can be arrested, beaten off the streets, etc.


  • Options
    #265
    Detritus70
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭Detritus70


    truth and logic wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I don't recall saying anything about racist rants.

    I understand completely about agreements and about sticking to them. I also understand that agreements can be one sided, unfair, domineering, or coercive.

    Amazon Web Services are wrong to be making judgements calls on content. AWS should prefer if they don't have to vet their customers as it's easier for them.

    No shoes, no shirt, no service.
    The management reserves the right to refuse admission.
    My gaffe, my rules.

    A business decides who they want to do business with. You can disagree all you want, but if you don't adhere to the terms and conditions you ain't doing business with them.
    Jesus, how often has this been explained on this thread?

    Of course a business can't decide it doesn't want to do business with women or black people.
    But this doesn't extend to extremists and headcases thank God.

    "I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." is the new "I'm not a racist, but...".



  • Options
    #266
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Such bull crap and you know it. There was murder involved. Plans to take hostages as I identified too with the cuffs!


    Carrying cable ties is not crime. Using them on someone IS.


    I could roam the woods with a bow and arrow, as could you.



    Someone could very easily say that your intent is to kill someone with your weapons.


    Don't get me wrong. It looks bad, some guy carrying cuffs or restraints but if that was REALLY your intent then why would you allow it to be known? Or recorded?


    You rock up to the seat of government that has spent TRILLIONS in defense in this century and you can just get inside. Not only that but you are planning such acts against this massive machine that you display your intentions?


  • Options
    #267
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Carrying cable ties is not crime. Using them on someone IS.


    I could roam the woods with a bow and arrow, as could you.



    Someone could very easily say that your intent is to kill someone with your weapons.


    Don't get me wrong. It looks bad, some guy carrying cuffs or restraints but if that was REALLY your intent then why would you allow it to be known? Or recorded?


    You rock up to the seat of government that has spent TRILLIONS in defense in this century and you can just get inside. Not only that but you are planning such acts against this massive machine that you display your intentions?

    I can’t engage further. I feel my IQ being lowered.


  • Options
    #268
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Detritus70 wrote: »
    No shoes, no shirt, no service.
    The management reserves the right to refuse admission.
    My gaffe, my rules.

    A business decides who they want to do business with. You can disagree all you want, but if you don't adhere to the terms and conditions you ain't doing business with them.
    Jesus, how often has this been explained on this thread?

    Of course a business can't decide it doesn't want to do business with women or black people.
    But this doesn't extend to extremists and headcases thank God.


    Your gaffe indeed.


  • Options
    #269
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    I can’t engage further. I feel my IQ being lowered.


    Well then I appreciate the engagement.


  • Options
    #270
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Such bull crap and you know it. There was murder involved. Plans to take hostages as I identified too with the cuffs!


    They weren't MY words.


    I was just passing on what the guy said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Carrying cable ties is not crime.

    Why do you think he was carrying them?


Advertisement