Going to get worse.

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Precisely. The laws are already there and need to be enforced. Ever since the Obama admin there seems to be a split in the judicial system. One set of laws for democrats, and another fro everyone else. This must stop.
 
Precisely. The laws are already there and need to be enforced. Ever since the Obama admin there seems to be a split in the judicial system. One set of laws for democrats, and another fro everyone else. This must stop.
So you do think the government should be involved in private sector companies?
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Here's the issue as I see it. Maybe AW can interject with some of his experience.

Social media USED to be social media when they allowed people to speak their minds. BUT, since they've decided to pick and choose what they will allow, and it's mostly one-sided, they have actually morphed into publishers. This being the case, they should be bound by the same laws and rules to which publishers are held. This means they must accept opposing views and allow unedited, and/or uncensored posts of political topics. Am I close on this, AW?
Dear Greg T:

You are right on the mark. Now, whether necessary changes will be forthcoming is another question.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
So you do think the government should be involved in private sector companies?
No, I do not, but they already are. There are commerce laws, and a whole shitload of tax laws and things I know nothing about. The problem is that they are not enforced unilaterally. If a law applies to you it should also apply to me. Thats not the case.
 
No, I do not, but they already are. There are commerce laws, and a whole shitload of tax laws and things I know nothing about. The problem is that they are not enforced unilaterally. If a law applies to you it should also apply to me. Thats not the case.
Do you think if you and I posted the exact same thing on Facebook, we would be treated differently?
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
I disagree. I'm sure some of these social media companies didn't know how strong they would become, and I'm sure they've needed to adjust their terms and conditions from time to time. However, none of it falls under the 1st amendment. I've been to a lot of homes in Southeast Asia, where you are asked to take your shoes off. It's their home, their rules. If I don't like it, I can choose not to visit.
You may think it's unfair, but it's doesn't have anything to do with your 1st amendment rights.
It's not about first amendment. It's about if they can be held in libel or slander. They can have their rules all they want, but publishers are held to those rules.

A good example miss CNN was sued over the kids defamation. If twitter allowed both sides of an argument, fine. If they are allowing only one side, then they are in effect supporting an opinion and should also be held liable for libel.

Again, they can do what they want, but they have to play by the same rules.

Twitter is already being sued by the computer repairman for hunter Biden's as their actions were slanderous.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Do you think if you and I posted the exact same thing on Facebook, we would be treated differently?
It's already happening. People are getting censored for calling blm protests riots while others call the capitol hill a riot and it's allowed. The idea is the same, but not the post. Antifa can call for violent protest but Trump supporters are pulled.

It's about the side you fall on. All violence is bad, but not in the eyes of the twitter-atti.

Again, fine by me but they should be able to be sued.
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
DONT MOST ALL "BIG" COMPANIES KNOW THEY WILL GET SUED AT SOME POINT? DONT THEY HAVE INSURANCE TO COVER SUCH THINGS? BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS SOME SLIME BALL JUST LOOKING TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK AND THE COMPANIES KNOW ITS JUST PART OF DOING BUSINESS. MAYBE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK, I DONT DO EITHER, ARE DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND AND SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THOSE FOLKS BUILT THEIR BUSINESS, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUN IT THE WAY THEY SEE FIT. IF THEY DONT WANT TO TOLERATE A CERTAIN POLITICAL VIEWPOINT, GOOD FOR THEM. LIKE HOSE SAID, YOU DONT LIKE IT, DONT USE IT.

CURRENT CASE IN POINT. IF YOU WANT TO SHOP AT A STORE THAT SAYS "YOU MUST WEAR A MASK TO ENTER AND SHOP HERE". DONT BE A LITTLE FUCKING CRYBABY, PUT ONE ON AND SHOP OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

HOSE'S SHOE COMPARRISON WAS A LITTLE OFF, BUT REALLY CLOSE. SAY ONE OF YOUR KIDS IS MARRYING SOMEONE. THAT SOMEONES PARENTS RENT A VENUE FOR A PRIVATE DINNER FOR 100 PEOPLE. THEY PAID FOR THE WHOLE THING. THE VENUE IS A PUBLIC PLACE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE. YOU SHOW UP AND THERE IS A SIGN ON THE DOOR, PLEASE REMOVE YOUR SHOES. YOU GO TALK TO MANAGEMENT AND THEY SAY ITS THE FAMILIES RULE, NOT THEIRS. DO YOU GET TO WALK IN WITH SHOES ON OR DO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF WHOS PAYING FOR THE VENUE? OR DO YOU JUST LEAVE BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT TO REMOVE YOUR SHOES?
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
DONT MOST ALL "BIG" COMPANIES KNOW THEY WILL GET SUED AT SOME POINT? DONT THEY HAVE INSURANCE TO COVER SUCH THINGS? BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS SOME SLIME BALL JUST LOOKING TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK AND THE COMPANIES KNOW ITS JUST PART OF DOING BUSINESS. MAYBE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK, I DONT DO EITHER, ARE DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND AND SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THOSE FOLKS BUILT THEIR BUSINESS, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUN IT THE WAY THEY SEE FIT. IF THEY DONT WANT TO TOLERATE A CERTAIN POLITICAL VIEWPOINT, GOOD FOR THEM. LIKE HOSE SAID, YOU DONT LIKE IT, DONT USE IT.

CURRENT CASE IN POINT. IF YOU WANT TO SHOP AT A STORE THAT SAYS "YOU MUST WEAR A MASK TO ENTER AND SHOP HERE". DONT BE A LITTLE FUCKING CRYBABY, PUT ONE ON AND SHOP OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

HOSE'S SHOE COMPARRISON WAS A LITTLE OFF, BUT REALLY CLOSE. SAY ONE OF YOUR KIDS IS MARRYING SOMEONE. THAT SOMEONES PARENTS RENT A VENUE FOR A PRIVATE DINNER FOR 100 PEOPLE. THEY PAID FOR THE WHOLE THING. THE VENUE IS A PUBLIC PLACE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE. YOU SHOW UP AND THERE IS A SIGN ON THE DOOR, PLEASE REMOVE YOUR SHOES. YOU GO TALK TO MANAGEMENT AND THEY SAY ITS THE FAMILIES RULE, NOT THEIRS. DO YOU GET TO WALK IN WITH SHOES ON OR DO YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF WHOS PAYING FOR THE VENUE? OR DO YOU JUST LEAVE BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT TO REMOVE YOUR SHOES?
Right to refuse business has nothing to do with this.

In the digital marketplace, carriers CANNOT stop the flow of information. Carriers are also immune to lawsuits. Is twitter a carrier?

Wamo, you really need to read up on section 230 and it's historical intent.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Do you think if you and I posted the exact same thing on Facebook, we would be treated differently?
That depends on what is posted. They DO have many different policies depending upon what or who is posting. For example, my friend posted, " White lives matter so lets standardize law". He was promptly placed on fb jail for 30 days. I changed white to black and remained free. We've tested this at least 4 times. Worked every time. We posted Clinton swinging from a rope and got booted. We posted Trumps severed head with no repercussions. FB has been censoring conservatives and cons. views for a long time

Consider this; Your cell phone carrier tells you it doesn't like the people you speak to or text with and shuts down your service. Allowed because it's a private business?
 
Last edited:

Djarum300

Addicted Member
That depends on what is posted. They DO have many different policies depending upon what or who is posting. For example, my friend posted, " White lives matter so lets standardize law". He was promptly placed on fb jail for 30 days. I changed white to black and remained free. We've tested this at least 4 times. Worked every time. We posted Clinton swinging from a rope and got booted. We posted Trumps severed head with no repercussions. FB has been censoring conservatives and cons. views for a long time

Consider this; Your cell phone carrier tells you it doesn't like the people you speak to or text with and shuts down your service. Allowed because it's a private business?
They can do that if it's illegal activity.

You could just go to a different carrier. The problem is, as we see it now, what happens if no major carrier gives you service because of something you said on a carriers line and all were pressured socially/financially to not have you as a paying custome
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
They can do that if it's illegal activity.

You could just go to a different carrier. The problem is, as we see it now, what happens if no major carrier gives you service because of something you said on a carriers line and all were pressured socially/financially to not have you as a paying custome
That's exactly what I meant. Now that I read it again I didn't explain well. What I'm saying is that they're listening to conversations and reading texts and punishing you for the content. That's exactly what FB and Twitter are doing and getting away with it. If phone companies, ISPs, etc. did the same thing they'd be slammed for it.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
For WAMO:

Just so you don't think this is just a right wing issue. This is the entire interview with Tulsi and she is a democrat. Go to the 14:30 minute mark where she talks about section 230.

 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Boom!!! That's what I've been saying. I don't like her verbiage, tho, when it comes to our elected officials. Elected officials are not leaders. They're supposed to be followers. They work for us and we pay their salaries so they should be following the will of the people. Also, she may call herself a democrat, but she is no contemporary democrat. She's more of a JFK democrat more leaning towards libertarian.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Boom!!! That's what I've been saying. I don't like her verbiage, tho, when it comes to our elected officials. Elected officials are not leaders. They're supposed to be followers. They work for us and we pay their salaries so they should be following the will of the people. Also, she may call herself a democrat, but she is no contemporary democrat. She's more of a JFK democrat more leaning towards libertarian.
I've never understood the idea of leaders for elected officials. For ranking military? CEOs? Coaches? Sure.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Looking like Amazon has been black mailed by the state pulled Parler from its servers.

The irony here is that democrats keep saying its a free market when its never been free. They complain over and over that capitalism is bad. It's only bad when it doesn't suit them.

Keep in mind, in a free market Amazon can do what it wants. But a free market doesn't include the state coming after Amazon, either.

Needless to say, I will stop my spending at Amazon. I will be going to Roku for my streaming services. That's my "free market" choice.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Looking like Amazon has been black mailed by the state pulled Parler from its servers.

The irony here is that democrats keep saying its a free market when its never been free. They complain over and over that capitalism is bad. It's only bad when it doesn't suit them.

Keep in mind, in a free market Amazon can do what it wants. But a free market doesn't include the state coming after Amazon, either.

Needless to say, I will stop my spending at Amazon. I will be going to Roku for my streaming services. That's my "free market" choice.
Let's just face it. Unless something huge happens in a couple of days our entire country is fucked. The reason we had a revolution and told England to get fucked, the war, the lives lost, the hardships....all for naught. We're back to the 1600s. As I said......democrats need to be exterminated.
 
Top