Crime TX passes anti deplatforming bill for tech companies

[jefferz]

I'll believe they are alternatives when they are actually used as alternatives. They aren't.

And whose fault is it that conservatives aren’t using those other platforms?
Prepare yourself, the answer may shock you, it’s the conservatives.

 

[44nutman]

Imagine believing that everyone being allowed the same opportunity to voice their opinion on social media is somehow violating the first amendment.

So you think Sherdog should not ban posters?
I should be able to go to a church forum and spam it with porn.
I should be able to go into a theater and yell fire?
Its not the governments fault that even though Parlor with tons of money backing it never caught on. The government should not step in because the alternatives are bad at business.
You basically saying all businesses should succeed. That is not capitalism. I own a business, and took risks opening it. I don't want the government to step in to help my competitors because I am better at it. Basically ending American ingenuity, which is what made this country great.
Its over reach. I get it; your team is the one that over reached so your natural inclination is to spin for them.
I supported the baker that did not want to put two grooms on top of his wedding cake, and I also support a private business for banning posters that violate their terms of service..
That is called being consistent in ones believes. I don't flop around on my beliefs in Capitalism, based on the party it effects.

This guy is spinning in his fucking grave watching his party regulate private businesses. He was the last true Conservative.

 

[Confucamus]

So you think Sherdog should not ban posters?
I should be able to go to a church forum and spam it with porn.
I should be able to go into a theater and yell fire?
Its not the governments fault that even though Parlor with tons of money backing it never caught on. The government should not step in because the alternatives are bad at business.
You basically saying all businesses should succeed. That is not capitalism. I own a business, and took risks opening it. I don't want the government to step in to help my competitors because I am better at it. Basically ending American ingenuity, which is what made this country great.
Its over reach. I get it; your team is the one that over reached so your natural inclination is to spin for them.
I supported the baker that did not want to put two grooms on top of his wedding cake, and I also support a private business for banning posters that violate their terms of service..
That is called being consistent in ones believes. I don't flop around on my beliefs in Capitalism, based on the party it effects.

This guy is spinning in his fucking grave watching his party regulate private businesses. He was the last true Conservative.

I don't know what to say about all this Reddit copy pasta bullshit. My gripe is with companies openly being selective with how to enforce their terms of service. It's discrimination. Your side is supposed to be against that.

 

[ultramanhyata]

But ultra only knows one thing. Lefties rule, righties drool. So cracking down on the big meanies is always a good thing.

What I have always known, on principle, and you are only coming to now (purely on amygdala-based tribal grounds) is that billionaires and corporations have far too much power in this society and must be brought to heel.

 

[Clifford_Harris]

I don't know what to say about all this Reddit copy pasta bullshit. My gripe is with companies openly being selective with how to enforce their terms of service. It's discrimination. Your side is supposed to be against that.

Pretty sure you're talking to a conservative........

Please tell me when political views and ideals became protected for discrimination to be an issue regarding them?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Imagine believing that everyone being allowed the same opportunity to voice their opinion on social media is somehow violating the first amendment.

No one believes that. LOL

 

[44nutman]

I don't know what to say about all this Reddit copy pasta bullshit. My gripe is with companies openly being selective with how to enforce their terms of service. It's discrimination. Your side is supposed to be against that.

Show some principals then. You are posting on a site that has unfairly banned or yellow carded posters.
Stick to a lane and stay in it, but if your into binary politics you find yourself swerving all over the road because both parties flip on issues because they know the Rubes will never hold them accountable.
You want to live in a Nanny State where government over regulates businesses that is fine but you might want to move to Europe.
Also my side has always been capitalism.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

When everyone uses the same means of communication then indeed it does become an essential service. That's how FB or Twitter could be viewed as public utilities. The telephone wasn't an essential utility until it became ubiquitous and the standard by which people communicated.

I can see the merit of such an argument and so can you, so let's not play games.

Your connection to the internet is the utility. A website being popular doesn't make it an essential service.

 

[Confucamus]

Show some principals then. You are posting on a site that has unfairly banned or yellow carded posters.

Prove it. Show me examples of the terms of service being enforced as selectively as Twitter or Facebook. I'll gladly condemn it. And no, just because a poster you liked got banned doesn't mean it was unfair.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Prove it. Show me examples of the terms of service being enforced as selectively as Twitter or Facebook. I'll gladly condemn it. And no, just because a poster you liked got banned doesn't mean it was unfair.

Though the First Amendment protects their right to "selectively enforce" their own TOS, is there any actual evidence that Twitter or Facebook are out to get conservatives? Sounds like more victim fantasies.

 

[Confucamus]

Though the First Amendment protects their right to "selectively enforce" their own TOS, is there any actual evidence that Twitter or Facebook are out to get conservatives? Sounds like more victim fantasies.

I hear ya, bud.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I hear ya, bud.

So, no, right?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

And yet the proof of the pudding is in the eating, in that despite it being easy to create your own site they have zero reach, zero users, and the theoretical possibility doesn't match the reality in which we live.

If you are an aspiring political candidate you really need social media reach, and that reach is privatised and can only be achieved through less than a handful of players. If they disapprove of your platform they currently have the right to remove you.

I'm naturally wary of overstep here but becoming a monopoly invites regulation to control your influence.

Good luck proving these companies are a monopoly. Your complaints sound like a poor guy wanting to use a successful person's resources for their benefit because it would be too hard to build up their own wealth. It's the man keeping you down because he won't let you into his business to loiter and panhandle around his customers.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

So much dishonest post in here, this is about protecting citizens free speech > corporations. The left has became giant corporation lovers I never thought I would see the day.

You have a right to your opinion but not to force others to disseminate it for you.

 

[Confucamus]

So, no, right?

I'm not really interested in doing this with you, Jack, considering the bad faith you tend to bring to these conversations. You alternatively go from justifying censorship of conservatives to claiming it doesn't exist. Sarah Jeong's tweets are a perfect example, but you'll try arguing they're satire. The Proud Boys will get banned for being a "violent extremist group" but the Taliban is allowed on there? Saying you believe trans people have a mental illness can get you banned but Lebron James can threaten a cop's life?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Imagine believing that everyone being allowed the same opportunity to voice their opinion on social media is somehow violating the first amendment.

What user was denied an account as opposed to being banned for the content they posted?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not really interested in doing this with you, Jack, considering the bad faith you tend to bring to these conversations. You alternatively go from justifying censorship of conservatives to claiming it doesn't exist. Sarah Jeong's tweets are a perfect example, but you'll try arguing they're satire. The Proud Boys will get banned for being a "violent extremist group" but the Taliban is allowed on there? Saying you believe trans people have a mental illness can get you banned but Lebron James can threaten a cop's life?

I'd think if you were going to make those kinds of accusations, you'd have some evidence. But I guess that's giving you credit for integrity that you don't have. And my view is consistent here: The First Amendment allows people to have opinions, but there's no actual evidence that conservatives are discriminated against (typically 8 or 9 of the top 10 FB posts in terms of engagement every day are from rightist nutjobs, for example).

Your one specific example is that one rightist group is banned but another is not. And evidence would require data collection.

 

[Mr Holmes]

These companies should all be broken up. They've allowed dangerous CRT and other hate speech (anything BLM related) to fester.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I don't know what to say about all this Reddit copy pasta bullshit. My gripe is with companies openly being selective with how to enforce their terms of service. It's discrimination. Your side is supposed to be against that.

What's the evidence that they're selectively enforcing the rules? Has it been brought to court?

 

[Jack V Savage]

What user was denied an account as opposed to being banned for the content they posted?

It's funny when these guys say that conservatives are banned for being conservative. Like, is anyone banned for wanting lower capital gains taxes or to get rid of the MW? No. The examples they give are violent groups getting richly deserved bans.