Why? Is there some special reason the public square ought to be owned by some rich dweeb?
The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
It's just that the Government doesn't have the expertise to run a social media site.
Haven't checked in for a while, but it seems Houseman is now arguing ToS violate constitutional rights?
Can I ask how old you are Houseman? Because your whole identity feels like you never grew out of the edgy teen phase. The "faxts and logik, so long as I can justify my argument to myself, it tracks" stage.
Can I ask how old you are Houseman? Because your whole identity feels like you never grew out of the edgy teen phase. The "faxts and logik, so long as I can justify my argument to myself, it tracks" stage.
...oh...oh God. "The ToS violates my rights"? He's....he's back!!!
RUN!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!
You could just hire people, or, you can just create regulation and enforce it through judges when companies get sued. One is definitely cheaper than the other.
Bullshit.
You have repeatedly said banning people from social media restricts them from being heard, which is an attack on freedom of speech.
People get banned for ToS violations.
If you're going to be a lazy dishonest troll, please remember your words dont vanish after you say them.
You have repeatedly said banning people from social media restricts them from being heard, which is an attack on freedom of speech.
People get banned for ToS violations.
If you're going to be a lazy dishonest troll, please remember your words dont vanish after you say them.
People get banned according to the whims of those that ban them. There is no sort of rule that says that the moderators and admins can't just make up reasons to ban someone on the fly.
If I had a website and I said "no Mexicans allowed", do you think that would be okay? It's according to the ToS, right?
In honor of MLK day, maybe Rosa Parks should have just abided by the bus's terms of service?
That would be discrimination, which there are laws in place against.
See previous point about lazy dishonest troll.
See previous point about lazy dishonest troll.
In today's exhibit, we have Houseman implying freedom of speech is not protected by law.
Well, given that we have laws to prevent people from being kicked out of stores because they're black, but not to prevent them from being kicked out for expressing certain opinions, it seems that any laws we might have are lacking.
We have laws to protect people from being discriminated against for inherent features of which they have no control over.
While I can see why being an asshole would be something you want to be protected, it is not.
You are free to be an asshole. However, no one around you is obliged to listen to you, or humour you, and thus you may be asked to leave private establishments.
While I can see why being an asshole would be something you want to be protected, it is not.
You are free to be an asshole. However, no one around you is obliged to listen to you, or humour you, and thus you may be asked to leave private establishments.
I like how the argument is always framed as the people who are being censored are always in the wrong, and the people who are doing the censoring are always in the right. It's almost as if people considered the matter objectively and didn't try to preemptively justify the act, they would see the flaw in their argument.
What if a liberal were kicked out of a Republican-run restaurant for the crime of sharing liberal opinions?
What if a liberal were kicked out of a Republican-run restaurant for the crime of sharing liberal opinions?
Actually the argument is framed by the arguer. If ObsidianJones was arguing that speech was being incorrectly punished in private venues, I'd be inclined to listen to his thoughts, because he's a reasonable person who regularly demonstrates empathy, morals and honesty.
When the presenter of the argument is a dishonest troll who spreads conspiracy theories and is almost incapable of operating in good faith, I'm inclined to think it's less the system is broken, and more impotent rage at society collectively flipping them off.
When the presenter of the argument is a dishonest troll who spreads conspiracy theories and is almost incapable of operating in good faith, I'm inclined to think it's less the system is broken, and more impotent rage at society collectively flipping them off.
Thank you for admitting that you are incapable of being objective and addressing the argument in good faith
All this pointless arguing with someone who by their own admission was wilfully ignorant on the subject until a few weeks ago.
Please do not insult other users
I feel like you never learned about the boy who cried wolf.
An argument or statement should hold weight under it's own merit, sure. But to ignore that the credibility of the presenter will impact both it's weight and the possible slants within, is downright ignorant and juvenile.
But thanks for showing your understanding of communication is less than that of a child who's understood a fable, in your epic "owning me".
Dumbass.
An argument or statement should hold weight under it's own merit, sure. But to ignore that the credibility of the presenter will impact both it's weight and the possible slants within, is downright ignorant and juvenile.
But thanks for showing your understanding of communication is less than that of a child who's understood a fable, in your epic "owning me".
Dumbass.