You foreclose on your house, can't pay the mortgage. Everything inside is foreclosed as well, including personal belongings.
New York Post editor calls out Twitter for refusing to let his publication post one of their stories
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
USA
That isn't how it works here regardless. When they foreclose on a home, the local sheriff or constable remove the previous home owner and their belongings by placing them outside. The former homeowner has a certain number of days ( varies by location) to come pick their belongings before they have them hauled off.
I am saying though that regardless of whoever obtains possession of a HD/SSD/or other data disk should not then be able to publish previous data on that HD/SSD without the consent of who previously owned that data. Things like emails, photos, Social security numbers, credit card numbers, medical data ect should be considered protected regardless of who obtains it. This would help solve a great deal of problems associated with data tech and closing the loopholes people are currently using to exploit/sell such data.
I will say it now if Satan was real, and lived on Earth, Hunter would be begging him for money as well.
Does he have no shame, he's the son of a high ranking American politician, yet he goes around begging for money from literally the worst countries there are. I didn't care about Trump, and or Biden if it was Ukraine, and I don't care if it's Qatar because those countries are insignificant in the bigger picture, but he has to go to out of his way to get money from the country with concentration camps, organ harvesting, and literally his own countries worst enemy.
Does he have no shame, he's the son of a high ranking American politician, yet he goes around begging for money from literally the worst countries there are. I didn't care about Trump, and or Biden if it was Ukraine, and I don't care if it's Qatar because those countries are insignificant in the bigger picture, but he has to go to out of his way to get money from the country with concentration camps, organ harvesting, and literally his own countries worst enemy.
Also, Twitter's Jack Dorsey, and Mark Zuckerberg so so full of shit. If Biden was losing they would be censoring posts from Biden. They have no right to censor social media because it's in effect the new town squares of the world. I am against Biden being censored, I am against Trump's allies being censored.
If it was the 1800s and The East Indian Company owned Boston's main town square, would you want to unlaw protests there just because it's "company property"?
If it was the 1800s and The East Indian Company owned Boston's main town square, would you want to unlaw protests there just because it's "company property"?
You abandon your home, and leave it behind. It is essentially what happened here if you believe the story.
Apparently twitter is putting out a warning if you click on a house judiciary comity .gov link that leads to them describing the NY post article, as if you just clicked on some virus or illegal site.
I can't see them staying unregulated for much longer when they pull of stunts like this.
I can't see them staying unregulated for much longer when they pull of stunts like this.
Facebook and Twitter are not the " new town squares", as governments are free to make their own town squares if the taxpayers demand it where the governments get to determine what is and is not free speech instead of abiding by house rules of private property.
What is prohibiting governments from making their own " town squares" on the internet themselves? That is why governments build their own city halls, rather than expect a local pub owner to surrender their own rights over their property for them to take it over instead?
They aren't making special rules for Trump or Biden. nor should they.
Last edited:
First, I'm begging you to take whatever preconceived notions you have about "publisher vs platform" and Section 230 and throw it out the fucking window, and then start from scratch with experts who know what they're talking about and won't make intellectually or outright factually dishonest claims about them. Because by the sound of your argument, you're taking your cue from pundits on the right, who have absolutely warped this to the point where it bears little resemblance to reality.
Second, it does make a difference. The Escapist is NOT liable for content that *users* post on the site. CDA 230 provides a shield against legal action for websites when a commenter posts something that's offensive, objectionable or defamatory that results in a lawsuit against that site; the expectation is that such sites will perform good faith content moderation, though courts in some cases have upheld 230 protection in cases where sites were aware of the objectionable content and did not remove it. More importantly, CDA 230 is extremely broad when it comes to third-party content and covers not just internet service providers and "publishers" like the Escapist, but also social media platforms. It makes no difference if the service provide curates third-party content AND publishes its own home-grown content (which the Escapist does, and which Twitter does not).
If you really want to learn more about Section 230 and other legal protections under the CDA that are currently under attack, strongly encourage you to read reputable sources like the Cato Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Mike Masnick at Techdirt, who is one of the foremost authorities on what Section 230 is (and isn't).
I think it is actually a good move to have a blanket policy to protect user data, Twitter, Facebook and other social media also need to keep up with privacy laws in other nations and having those rules apply universally will keep their platform open across nations rather than being US centric only. There is no free speech on private platforms. There is also nothing stopping governments from building one of their own that applies to their laws only if they like, however, I have a feeling that it is just a matter of time that private data such as emails, photographs, medical data, social security numbers and credit card information will also come under the clamp of privacy laws in the US as well.
This may not have the effect you think it will. Instead, you can expect MORE privacy protections, not less, for our future and instead universally restrict the publishing of such personal data without the persons permission at all anywhere.
Yes, they are, most Americans are on social media, most Americans don't go to town halls. And you, and I both know governments will never build social media websites due to the capitalist nature of the US government to privatized public goods.
And no comments on say the white house website are not the public squares since most Americans don't utilize to them. They do use Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and youtube.
Twitter already censors content based on nation-specific criteria. For example lots of stuff that we see they do not put out in Iran. And they purport to be pro LGBT and so on whereas such a stance would get them blocked in a bunch of the arab world so they only push that message in the countries that are already ok with it. (you legit have twitter messaging people letting them know they broke blasphemy laws in islamic countries)
They also banned a lot of terms which only are offensive to the Chinese government, such as terms about Taiwan and about the HK protests.
So, no, they already definitely have nation-centric policies they already put into practice. They are just choosing not to do that here in this particular case.
And notice, I just mentioned that they'd be regulated, not that they'd be censored. If china can threaten to shut you down so you will uphold their communist party propaganda then the US can do so as well.
Just because most Americans use pubs does not mean the pub owners surrender their property rights. That is what you are expecting them to do here.
IF the Taxpayers want their own, they just have to call upon their government to build one. That is how we built court houses, town halls and other government buildings as well. This is no different.
However, limiting content by country makes it more difficult to have a universally international platform. Being ahead of that by protecting privacy for people in all nations they don't have to worry about constantly trying to juggle different nations privacy protections. Besides, this should be implemented in the US already and it is just a matter of time for the US to catch up with everyone else as it is.
The idea is that in some cases of public interest (such as with the Snowden leaks) there's a public good need that trumps the privacy issues, and Twitter isn't supposed to either make that determination or just have a zero tolerance policy irrespective of the facts.
So when the governmental house judiciary comity decides there's a public good need in the information being publicized, that meets the standard, no matter what twitter thinks.
And again, it's not like you can't go to the link, they just put a fictitious warning on it, a deceptive image that speaks of it as if it were linking to a virus site or a site that is illegal or harmful to your device. That's just not true with a .gov site under any definition.
Pubs aren't essential to free speech, and the first amendment. If we don't regulate the social media companies and allow more domestic free speech, they will just censor the side they don't think will win, or donated to in campaign bribes.
Right, but they don't need twitter to do it. Snowden chose to go to the guardian to do so. There are other ways to get it out there than expect everyone to bend their rules for them. At least when going through a credible organization like the Guardian, they can look over the content and make a reasonable judgment on what should be redacted that could cause harm rather than just putting information out there that could dx individuals or expose other private information. ALSO, whistleblower laws should apply in that situation as well. My father too was a whistleblower and I understand all too well how important those protections are, but you also have to have the " for the better good" and I am not seeing that emails of politicians kids being introduced to someone or whatever as being meeting that criteria.
I would oppose the same being done to Barron or Ivanka as well. Ivanka basically ignored all the implications of using her fathers position to gain contacts, patents, and contracts and even went as far as sit in her fathers spot at the G20 summit, but then using her private emails to show she was doing these things would still be crossing the privacy line as there is nothing really to be gained "for the better good" from doing so. I am not seeing that as being the equivalent of what Snowden actually did here at all.
That is where people discussed these things long before the internet existed and where they still do in areas without internet access. 33 Million people in the US are still without internet. You can't even get internet everywhere in the US. There are mountain regions, for example, they have not even been able to do so yet.
Living Without Internet? Join Nearly 33M Americans Who Aren't As Well!
The FCC says 99.99% of the U.S. has internet access, yet 10% of Americans are living without internet. Who’s not online and why?
www.allconnect.com
If anything, we should regulate the social media for would be privacy protection, not expecting them to let you do whatever you want in their place of business. Like I stated earlier. If the people want to build an internet town hall, there is nothing stopping them from petitioning their government to do so just like they built the real town halls. However, just as you are not allowed to say whatever you want in city hall, and they will haul you out, you can still get tossed from there as well doing the same.
This article being linked is something that was taken to the NY post, like with the Guardian. They already made their judgements. Why is it valid for the Guardian to make that choice and not for NY Post?
Twitter didn't censor the posts about that story despite it also having personal information being leaked illegally. They only do it in this case.
And the public interest in this case is less about the guy smoking crack and more about him introducing some executive to his then VP dad when they have stated that such a thing never occured.
Well, to my knowledge Biden simply claimed he'd never discussed his son's business dealings. That could well be true: Hunter's inevitably going to know some Ukrainian businessmen in a social capacity if he works there.
But, yes, there is a very valid public interest argument nonetheless.
Not only that, but happened to dump the computers with an ethically-challenged repairman who felt like sifting through the hard drives (to my understanding not illegal, but viewed as poor practice in the computer repairs field) and luckily enough just happened to also be fanatically pro-Trump to ship a copy straight to Rudy Giuliani as well as the FBI.
I mean, that's all the most amazing luck, isn't it?