Lord Jamar says keep censoring because thought crimes will be a thing

Adeptus Astartes

Loyal servant of the God-Brehmperor
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
10,596
Reputation
2,458
Daps
64,830
Reppin
Imperium of Man
:comeon:Lets not play these games. I was very clear on two conditions: a, that the American tax payer was funding it, and b, as a sign of its very public nature, presidents break news there. Do either of those conditions apply to the coli?

If you believe that those people are liberals, it explains a lot. I'll leave it there. :skip:
Taxpayers don't fund Facebook or Twitter (the only ones conservatives bytch about), at least not in any meaninful manner. By your logic, the internet backbone itself was funded by DoD, therefore no content ToS violations can be enforced anywhere.

If one private company can be compelled by government to host content, it follows that others can be compelled as well, your conditions are hogwash.

Who gives a fukk where Presidents break news? That's completely irrelevent. Anyone can read Twitter, posting is a privelege that comes with agreeing to a ToS. You break them, you lose poating priveleges. Simple as that.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: EA

Adeptus Astartes

Loyal servant of the God-Brehmperor
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
10,596
Reputation
2,458
Daps
64,830
Reppin
Imperium of Man
No, thats two different points. If they constitute the modern public square, as American companies, they should be abiding by our free speech laws.
:mjlol: They aren't public. shyt, even taxpayer funded public property has rules. Walk into your local city hall and start ranting and hurling racial epithets around. You'd get escorted out with the quickness.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: EA

Blackgate

💩🔛🤡🤡🤡
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,225
Reputation
290
Daps
4,800
there is speech that is not protected by the first amendment like fighting words and libel and other shyt
 

HarlemHottie

Uptown Thoroughbred
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
17,469
Reputation
10,586
Daps
73,227
Reppin
#ADOS
Taxpayers don't fund Facebook or Twitter (the only ones conservatives bytch about), at least not in any meaninful manner

You clearly didn't google the search terms I gave you. I hate when ppl discount 'conspiracies' without even a brief review of the source material, it reflects an inflexible mind.

Let me hand feed you. You're not qualified to argue the point until you get a full review of the facts, not being rude, but you don't even know what you arguing against. :mjlol:



Depending on your perspective, you may view the second link as suspect. Fine, but its impeccably sourced- at least glance at the evidence. The overall point should be obvious: the US govt doesnt allow entities they dont own or control to set the tone of discourse. See: Operation Mockingbird for old school examples. You think they stopped? :mjlol:
 

HarlemHottie

Uptown Thoroughbred
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
17,469
Reputation
10,586
Daps
73,227
Reppin
#ADOS
there is speech that is not protected by the first amendment like fighting words and libel and other shyt
And, imo, that limitation should be upheld. My problem is the deplatforming of 'wrongthink.' People are allowed to be stupid and wrong publicly, its your job to prove them wrong. Stop being lazy. :skip:
 

Adeptus Astartes

Loyal servant of the God-Brehmperor
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
10,596
Reputation
2,458
Daps
64,830
Reppin
Imperium of Man
You clearly didn't google the search terms I gave you. I hate when ppl discount 'conspiracies' without even a brief review of the source material, it reflects an inflexible mind.

Let me hand feed you. You're not qualified to argue the point until you get a full review of the facts, not being rude, but you don't even know what you arguing against. :mjlol:



Depending on your perspective, you may view the second link as suspect. Fine, but its impeccably sourced- at least glance at the evidence. The overall point should be obvious: the US govt doesnt allow entities they dont own or control to set the tone of discourse. See: Operation Mockingbird for old school examples. You think they stopped? :mjlol:
Lmao. Google, etc. are private entities. Even if they got government funding at some time, it's irrelevent. Free speech gpes both ways.

You dodged the meat of my post. The MIC created and actively funds the backbone of the internet as a whole. Should ToS violations be enforceable anywhere on the net?

Where does it end? How popular does a site have to be before its ToS becomes unenforceable?
 

boogers

cats rule, dogs drool
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
6,862
Reputation
2,784
Daps
20,114
Reppin
#catset
They haven’t completely removed dislikes. You just can’t see the number of dislikes unless you actually dislike something. They should honestly do the same for likes because a lot of people succumb to following the crowd. I’ve even seen it on here, I’ll make a comment that wont get any reactions. Then a few days or a week later, one person daps it, then more and more people start dapping it only after that initial person set it off. It’s like people don’t want to be the one who gives that first dap because they’re worried about who will see it.

If they want, they should simply tally the number of reactions, then you wont know what is liked or disliked until you click on it.
i dont know why people think the first amendment applies to corporations on the internet, but there ya go

most americans are in dire need of a basic civics lesson, for real.
 
Top