Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Detritus70 · 14-01-2021 2:33pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And who gets to determine what apps/platforms can exist and which ones can't?

It think the majority would agree that Jaws 3 is a floating turd of a movie. Does that mean it's ok to ban it?

The owner of the platform. If I run a business and a guy causes trouble, I tell him to get out.
Buut of course you know that, you're just refusing to see the point because your entire argument falls apart.
"We reserve the right to refuse admission".
That is a fact and cannot be altered by any of your so called arguments.
If I don't want you as a customer, your getting the boot and you can shout and scream all you want, but you're not coming back inside the shop.
Or you probably would, are you one of those guys that keeps coming back after being banned just to cause trouble?

They can set up their own servers or find idiots in Russia or China who will host them.
If you sh*t in the shop, you're gonna get sh*tcanned.
Comprende Amigo?

Detritus70 · 14-01-2021 2:37pm

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 3:03pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

...
"We reserve the right to refuse admission".
That is a fact and cannot be altered by any of your so called arguments.
...

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.

I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.

The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.

Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-01-2021 3:06pm

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.

I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.

The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.

Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

Are you saying racism is not illegal? Go stand in a main street in any major city with a megaphone and spout racist diatribes, please film it for us as it would be a joy to hear you tell the local police it's not illegal as you get arrested.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 3:08pm

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.

I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.

The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.

Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

People can have their electricity supply cut off completely. There is no universal right to it. We went through that already.

None of it was at the whim of a private company. Parler repeatedly brok the agreements they made. They could have abided by their agreements but they didn’t.

How is the search for the William von Hippel quote/paper going?

Detritus70 · 14-01-2021 3:15pm

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.

I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.

The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.

Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

So should Boards be required to print absolutely anything you write?
In the Motors section you can't post about foglights. In other sections you're not allowed to talk about religion or football.
And if you don't abide by those rules, to which you agreed when opening a boards.ie account, you will get banned and thrown off the platform.

A private business will provide you with a service, but only as long as youkeep to the terms and conditions.
If you don't, you'll get thrown off the platform.

Seriously, this isn't hard to understand...

King Mob · 14-01-2021 3:32pm

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.

Racism and mad conspiracy theories aren't protected grounds though.

Being a racist with racist beliefs is not equivalent to age, race, sexuality etc.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 5:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's in the title.

You are presenting this (very vague) notion that some companies are "working together" to shut down free speech because it's somehow not in their best interests.

So why is Twitter taking part in this? they are losing users

More deflecting and attempts at turning this into a circular argument.

If a thread title was "Contractors embezzle millions in federal funds during Hurricane Katrina cleanup" would you start waffling on about meteorological patterns and how the storm formed and progressed?

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 5:21pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

More deflecting and attempts at turning this into a circular argument.

If a thread title was "Contractors embezzle millions in federal funds during Hurricane Katrina cleanup" would you start waffling on about meteorological patterns and how the storm formed and progressed?

Obviously your opening post is confusing, as people both sides of the discussion have deviated and progressed from your ideal conversation that appeared to lack substance and so the conversation moved on.

silliussoddius · 14-01-2021 5:31pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

Sums it up, although there are many who seem think freedom of speech gives them a guarantee that their opinion is correct.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 5:52pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So I am biased for thinking an armed mob that tries to reverse a democratic election by attacking the Capitol resulting 5 dead is worse than a mob rioting burning cars....yup...I can settle with that.

The outcome of the violence is not the point.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 5:56pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The outcome of the violence is not the point.

Conversations progress and go in different directions. That’s what makes them interesting. For example if it was a conversation about a new manned moon landing, then it is natural that previous moon landing is mentioned. The mods are around and can decide when people stray as is already evident in this thread.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 6:06pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

There is a whole world outside of AppStore apps, and another whole world outside of apps altogether. Google is your friend if you want to discover these worlds. There are offline methods too.

Don't be ridiculous. If you have an Apple phone pretty much the only way you can install an app is via the Apple Store. You can botch up a $700 iPhone by jailbreaking it but then you have no support and you can forget about security updates. You might even find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

If an app isn't in the Apple Store you're pretty much out of luck.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 6:12pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. If you have an Apple phone pretty much the only way you can install an app is via the Apple Store. You can botch up a $700 iPhone by jailbreaking it but then you have no support and you can forget about security updates. You might even find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

If an app isn't in the Apple Store you're pretty much out of luck.

You just contradicted yourself with regards to IOS apps, and in doing so proved yourself wrong.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 6:17pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well in the op you stated

Parler has been "targeted" due to Trumps words/actions so surely bringing that up is a pertinent part of the thread.

Trump's ramblings are also available on YouTube and Twitter. Were those platforms shut down?

And was Trump actually a Parler user/account holder?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 7:18pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Why must we? So people can post whatever bile they want online?

Anyone can set up these services. Apple, Amazon, Google etc do not own the internet. There are plenty of alternatives already available. It really is not a case of the big bad companies rule the world. People still have choice out there.

The thing is that these tech monopolies determine what can be posted/broadcast and what can't regardless of whether it is inciteful of not.

I know people of your ilk. They will rail that Apple/Google/Amazon have every right to shut down inciteful or inflammatory content and in the next breath they will say "Fuck the Muslims, this is freedom of speech!" when someone prints an image of Mohammed depicted as fellating a donkey or some other inciteful and inflammatory rubbish in the full knowledge that such a move will cause offense and undoubtedly violence.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 7:22pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Parler wasn't "shut down" parler can go to any number of other companies and be hosted there. Amazon chose to discontinue doing business with Parler as is thier right.

Timber, that's nonsense and you know it.

How can they operate? What you say is akin to putting someone on a no-fly list and then saying "well if they want to travel from New York to Auckland they can always walk to LA and then swim the rest of the way"

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 7:25pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Electrical companies do enforce conditions. You cannot tamper with the meter, and you must pay your bills. I’m sure there are loads more if I read the terms and conditions I signed up to. If you breach their conditions they can cut you off. This has occurred many times.

And people who hire Amazon Web Services don't NOT pay their bills or break into the data centres and hold piss-ups. What are you on about?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 7:32pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Speak for yourself!

He didn't say ALL humans.

Jealousy, spite, revenge, greed, corruption, etc are also natural in humans. The fact that you are beautifully bereft of these unsavoury traits doesn't nullify the statement.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 7:42pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

The owner of the platform. If I run a business and a guy causes trouble, I tell him to get out.
Buut of course you know that, you're just refusing to see the point because your entire argument falls apart.
"We reserve the right to refuse admission".
That is a fact and cannot be altered by any of your so called arguments.
If I don't want you as a customer, your getting the boot and you can shout and scream all you want, but you're not coming back inside the shop.
Or you probably would, are you one of those guys that keeps coming back after being banned just to cause trouble?

They can set up their own servers or find idiots in Russia or China who will host them.
If you sh*t in the shop, you're gonna get sh*tcanned.
Comprende Amigo?

Your analogies as as weak as imaginable.

Parler was a competitor not a troublemaker. They were ostracised on the grounds that certain elements used their platform to peddle illegal content and that Parler refused to abide by not only their own Terms Of Service but those of the App Store.

If you want to revisit your silly shop analogy it's akin to me being a beer brewer and using you shop to sell my product. A bunch of skinheads buy the product, drink it and then go on a rampage smashing the bottles over peoples' heads. Are you going to ban me from using your shop to sell my beer?

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 7:57pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The thing is that these tech monopolies determine what can be posted/broadcast and what can't regardless of whether it is inciteful of not.

I know people of your ilk. They will rail that Apple/Google/Amazon have every right to shut down inciteful or inflammatory content and in the next breath they will say "Fuck the Muslims, this is freedom of speech!" when someone prints an image of Mohammed depicted as fellating a donkey or some other inciteful and inflammatory rubbish in the full knowledge that such a move will cause offense and undoubtedly violence.

I apologise for my ilk being of sound and logical mind.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 8:06pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

And once again you display your talent for getting the wrong end of the stick.

Parler was crushed on the pretext that a third party posted inciteful material (amongst other reasons)

Your little cartoon talks about a "show being cancelled". If a show is deemed eligible for cancellation then do you axe the show or shutdown the channel that aired it?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 8:12pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying racism is not illegal? Go stand in a main street in any major city with a megaphone and spout racist diatribes, please film it for us as it would be a joy to hear you tell the local police it's not illegal as you get arrested.

How can racism be illegal? It's nasty but it's a feeling, an opinion. It's not a crime.

If some close minded bigot comes out and says that he hates all people with brown eyes or if he's some clown who just hates women and is a self-confessed misogynist do you think you can just drag him before the courts and try him?

Of COURSE racism is not illegal.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 8:14pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And once again you display your talent for getting the wrong end of the stick.

Parler was crushed on the pretext that a third party posted inciteful material (amongst other reasons)

Your little cartoon talks about a "show being cancelled". If a show is deemed eligible for cancellation then do you axe the show or shutdown the channel that aired it?

I thought this wasn’t about Parler, yet you keep on involving Parler.

Did you pay a load of money to Parler, or to some grifter on it? Is that why you are so focused and angry about Parler, or is it angry with Parler for breaking their agreements and falling out with their service providers?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 8:17pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

So should Boards be required to print absolutely anything you write?
In the Motors section you can't post about foglights. In other sections you're not allowed to talk about religion or football.
And if you don't abide by those rules, to which you agreed when opening a boards.ie account, you will get banned and thrown off the platform.

A private business will provide you with a service, but only as long as youkeep to the terms and conditions.
If you don't, you'll get thrown off the platform.

Seriously, this isn't hard to understand...

It seems VERY hard for you to understand.

If someone posts on boards.ie about foglights or religion or football should boards.ie be shut down?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 8:23pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

People can have their electricity supply cut off completely. There is no universal right to it. We went through that already.

None of it was at the whim of a private company. Parler repeatedly brok the agreements they made. They could have abided by their agreements but they didn’t.

How is the search for the William von Hippel quote/paper going?

And why and when can people have electricity cut off by the provider? As far as I know the supply can only be terminated for non-payment of said service.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 8:26pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And why and when can people have electricity cut off by the provider? As far as I know the supply can only be terminated for non-payment of said service.

Eh yeah. Non payment is breach of agreement. How do you not understand that you can lose your rights to a service when you break an agreement with the service provider? It is really basic and simple logic.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 9:20pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

On the contrary, I certainly have an interest in exposing a conspiracy that doesn't have any basis. I'm not getting this one at all, but I've made my points and will leave it at that.

You just have to have the last word.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 9:25pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Obviously your opening post is confusing, as people both sides of the discussion have deviated and progressed from your ideal conversation that appeared to lack substance and so the conversation moved on.

There's nothing confusing about it.

I stated the pretext and then tabled a motion.

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 9:59pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I thought this wasn’t about Parler, yet you keep on involving Parler.

Did you pay a load of money to Parler, or to some grifter on it? Is that why you are so focused and angry about Parler, or is it angry with Parler for breaking their agreements and falling out with their service providers?

This discussion is about censorship in its many slippery forms.

I mention Parler because it is a recent case of tech titans crushing a competitor, their reasons for so doing grounded in hypocrisy and unfair influence.

The arguments on here are that Parler was a ghetto for outsiders, upstarts and kooks and this is reason enough to have the platform railroaded.

The SV tech giants also censored the New York Post in the run up to the 2020 election over articles about Hunter Biden's laptops and emails.

Now I'm not sure what set of protocols you live by and what you think is free and ok and what you think is fine and dandy no matter the techniques, but it seems as if you are quite au fait with authoritarianism as long as it only fucks with others that you couldn't care less about.

As I mentioned before, events are almost always used as ammunition to implement restrictive measures. That some clown apparently tried to set fire to his trainers on a plane means now that every female who isn't wearing flip-flops must take her shoes off and walk across a filthy floor at the airport.

The gang who stormed Capitol Hill were never going to succeed in doing anything no matter what they smashed and who put them up to it. Likewise a guy who tried to blow up a plane with his boxer shorts was never going to do a damn things yet here we are not allowed to bring a tube of toothpaste on a plane because we might be able to magically convert it into a H-bomb on the toilets in 5 minutes.

The Capitol riots were nothing. People call them "unprecendented". Talk about hyperbole. Were the riots in LA, post Rodney King verdict just a gnat's fart? How about Watts? How about the Philadelphia Strikes?

A bunch smashed a few windows and desecrated Nancy Pelosi's precious desk and this is sedition? This is a "coup"?

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-01-2021 10:12pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

This discussion is about censorship in its many slippery forms.

I mention Parler because it is a recent case of tech titans crushing a competitor, their reasons for so doing grounded in hypocrisy and unfair influence.

The arguments on here are that Parler was a ghetto for outsiders, upstarts and kooks and this is reason enough to have the platform railroaded.

The SV tech giants also censored the New York Post in the run up to the 2020 election over articles about Hunter Biden's laptops and emails.

Now I'm not sure what set of protocols you live by and what you think is free and ok and what you think is fine and dandy no matter the techniques, but it seems as if you are quite au fait with authoritarianism as long as it only fucks with others that you couldn't care less about.

As I mentioned before, events are almost always used as ammunition to implement restrictive measures. That some clown apparently tried to set fire to his trainers on a plane means now that every female who isn't wearing flip-flops must take her shoes off and walk across a filthy floor at the airport.

The gang who stormed Capitol Hill were never going to succeed in doing anything no matter what they smashed and who put them up to it. Likewise a guy who tried to blow up a plane with his boxer shorts was never going to do a damn things yet here we are not allowed to bring a tube of toothpaste on a plane because we might be able to magically convert it into a H-bomb on the toilets in 5 minutes.

The Capitol riots were nothing. People call them "unprecendented". Talk about hyperbole. Were the riots in LA, post Rodney King verdict just a gnat's fart? How about Watts? How about the Philadelphia Strikes?

A bunch smashed a few windows and desecrated Nancy Pelosi's precious desk and this is sedition? This is a "coup"?

In what way was Parler in competition with Amazon? Apple? Google?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 10:23pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Eh yeah. Non payment is breach of agreement. How do you not understand that you can lose your rights to a service when you break an agreement with the service provider? It is really basic and simple logic.

This is painful but I'll give it one last stab.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PAYING OR NOT PAYING FOR A SERVICE. RIGHT?

IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR THAT SERVICE THEN THAT SERVICE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO YOU. RIGHT?

If you don't pay your electricity bill you can be cut off. RIGHT?

So far, so good?

If you do NOT pay your bill and are in breach of contract then should the power company be shut down?

Just let that sink in for a moment?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 10:41pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

In what way was Parler in competition with Amazon? Apple? Google?

No moreso than it was in competition with Adidas or Airbus or Chef Sauce.

It was a social media competitor.

Detritus70 · 14-01-2021 10:41pm

It's not that we don't understand your point, we just don't agree.
You can type 20 pages of angry wall-o-text, but you're making the same arguments over and over and over again.
Yes, we've read them.
No, we don't agree.
No one's right to freedom of speech was violated. This is not censorship.
That fact that we disagree and that you are angry about that doesn't validate your point.

14-01-2021 10:42pm

Looks like the real culprits here are pesky Amazon employees.

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

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 10:47pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

This is painful but I'll give it one last stab.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PAYING OR NOT PAYING FOR A SERVICE. RIGHT?

IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR THAT SERVICE THEN THAT SERVICE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO YOU. RIGHT?

If you don't pay your electricity bill you can be cut off. RIGHT?

So far, so good?

If you do NOT pay your bill and are in breach of contract then should the power company be shut down?

Just let that sink in for a moment?

You don’t seem to understand basic agreements, or much in reality. Even a child understands if they stick to their agreements they get a reward. Parler didn’t stick to their agreements and so the reward of services was removed. How is this so complicated to you?

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-01-2021 10:50pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No moreso than it was in competition with Adidas or Airbus or Chef Sauce.

It was a social media competitor.

Ah right

What social media sites do Amazon, Apple, Google own/run that Parler were in competition with?

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 10:53pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

This discussion is about censorship in its many slippery forms.

I mention Parler because it is a recent case of tech titans crushing a competitor, their reasons for so doing grounded in hypocrisy and unfair influence.

The arguments on here are that Parler was a ghetto for outsiders, upstarts and kooks and this is reason enough to have the platform railroaded.

The SV tech giants also censored the New York Post in the run up to the 2020 election over articles about Hunter Biden's laptops and emails.

Now I'm not sure what set of protocols you live by and what you think is free and ok and what you think is fine and dandy no matter the techniques, but it seems as if you are quite au fait with authoritarianism as long as it only fucks with others that you couldn't care less about.

As I mentioned before, events are almost always used as ammunition to implement restrictive measures. That some clown apparently tried to set fire to his trainers on a plane means now that every female who isn't wearing flip-flops must take her shoes off and walk across a filthy floor at the airport.

The gang who stormed Capitol Hill were never going to succeed in doing anything no matter what they smashed and who put them up to it. Likewise a guy who tried to blow up a plane with his boxer shorts was never going to do a damn things yet here we are not allowed to bring a tube of toothpaste on a plane because we might be able to magically convert it into a H-bomb on the toilets in 5 minutes.

The Capitol riots were nothing. People call them "unprecendented". Talk about hyperbole. Were the riots in LA, post Rodney King verdict just a gnat's fart? How about Watts? How about the Philadelphia Strikes?

A bunch smashed a few windows and desecrated Nancy Pelosi's precious desk and this is sedition? This is a "coup"?

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?

ShatterAlan · 14-01-2021 11:11pm

Now to all and sundry

If incitement, on Twitter, is such a moot point then why would anyone be censored on that platform and others not?

In 2017 Nancy Pelosi tweeted:

"Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy and #FollowTheFacts.

15-01-2021 12:12am

A moot point is something that doesn't matter.

Pretty much like your conspiracy theory.

Have a good one.

ShatterAlan · 15-01-2021 12:53am

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.

Fighting Tao · 15-01-2021 8:31am

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.

The J Stands for Jay · 15-01-2021 8:50am

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?

ShatterAlan · 15-01-2021 1:08pm

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.

Fighting Tao · 15-01-2021 1:10pm

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.

Fighting Tao · 15-01-2021 1:13pm

Double post

truth and logic · 15-01-2021 1:48pm

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.

EyesClosed · 15-01-2021 1:55pm

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

Fighting Tao · 15-01-2021 1:57pm

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?

King Mob · 15-01-2021 1:58pm

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.

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Comments