Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 15 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15
Question for cons ??
7 days ago  ::  Aug 14, 2019 - 11:21AM #141
felipe27point5
Posts: 2,102

Aug 14, 2019 -- 11:17AM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Aug 14, 2019 -- 11:09AM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Aug 13, 2019 -- 6:26PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Aug 13, 2019 -- 6:14PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Aug 13, 2019 -- 5:08PM, louisiana_lightning wrote:


Aug 13, 2019 -- 4:56PM, SSBob643 wrote:


Aug 13, 2019 -- 3:55PM, Max wrote:


Aug 12, 2019 -- 11:09AM, Max wrote:


To the Cons that keep repeating that it's the Dems that want to take away their freedom and turn the US into Venezuela....


Your thoughts about the leaked draft of Trump Executive Order to Censor the Internet?








Well look at that. A whole day goes by and no Con complaints about the leaked draft of Trump's Executive Order to Censor the Internet. The same Cons that keep repeating that it's the Dems that want to take away their freedom and turn the US into Venezuela. 


I saw imaginary BS about the Dems wanting to take away freedoms. Yet, Cons are silent about the EO that actually exists. What happened? Does it only matter which Party in your minds wants to take away freedoms? 




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Stop kidding yourself...


Trumpies would welcome a dictatorship as long as the dictator shared their agenda.




I suppose this is what you are talking about:


www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/white-...


This is about combatting the way that Alphabet and the rest selectively enforcing their platforms. 


If they are a platform they have no right to exert editorial control and censor material that complies with their terms of use.


If they want to exert editorial control they should be treated like a publisher and accept liability for anything on their platform.




How is this not anti freedom of speech?




It's anti-freedom of speech when a platform censors material arbitrarily.   If they are exercising editorial control over content they need to operate under the same rules as a publisher.  Look at twitter suspending McConnell's account for posting video of death threats against him from protesters. 




Freedom of speech applies to the government censoring speech. It doesn't apply to a private company censoring speech. Keep taking it back to the baker example... if i'm a private company and i feel like censoring the gay wedding by not assiting in platforming the ceremony with my cake, you'd argue i should have that right. But does that mean i also have to not give a cake to a christian wedding in exchange so that i'm applying my censorship evenly? 


And before we go down that rabbit hole, both religion and sexuality are protected categories and i believe a baker can censor neither of them based on that alone. 


As for McConnell, if posting a video laden with profanity violates twitter's TOS, can twitter not suspend the account for violating TOS? Why does the video suddenly become protected speech because of a blue checkmark on the account?




The baker is exercising editorial control of the product they put out.  It's their creation and they are liable for it.  Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc call themselves platforms creating a space for public expression much like the phone company.  If they decide to arbitrarily censor or exert editorial control over content beyond their terms of use they are acting as a publisher providing 3rd party material like a magazine or news station.  In that case they should be liable for the material that host.




So what are some examples of them doing that?

You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
6 days ago  ::  Aug 15, 2019 - 12:08PM #142
Max
Posts: 2,188

Aug 13, 2019 -- 4:56PM, SSBob643 wrote:


Aug 13, 2019 -- 3:55PM, Max wrote:


Aug 12, 2019 -- 11:09AM, Max wrote:


To the Cons that keep repeating that it's the Dems that want to take away their freedom and turn the US into Venezuela....


Your thoughts about the leaked draft of Trump Executive Order to Censor the Internet?








Well look at that. A whole day goes by and no Con complaints about the leaked draft of Trump's Executive Order to Censor the Internet. The same Cons that keep repeating that it's the Dems that want to take away their freedom and turn the US into Venezuela. 


I saw imaginary BS about the Dems wanting to take away freedoms. Yet, Cons are silent about the EO that actually exists. What happened? Does it only matter which Party in your minds wants to take away freedoms? 




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Stop kidding yourself...


Trumpies would welcome a dictatorship as long as the dictator shared their agenda.




Not kidding myself. The lack of complaints about Trump's EO from those that falsely claim that the Dems that want to take away their freedom and turn the US into Venezuela speaks volumes.

Page 15 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum