Trump says he’ll veto defense bill unless Section 230 is terminated

a reply to: jhn7537

I love to see the free market in action.

Vote with your wallet! LOL.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Big words won't legitimize your bad point.

You literally compared ATS t&c violations to big social medias post removal of differing political ideology.

Like I said.....show me a social media platform t&c that bans conservative posts.

You can't and you are misinformed, or uninformed.

The Problem is whether a site is a publisher or a public forum. They can't have it both ways...

Currently, social media presents itself as a public forum which gets it certain protections but they are acting as publishers by censoring.

Either they choose to be and act like a public forum and be afforded some protections, or they choose to be a publisher and censor all they want but be responsible for everything.

a reply to: Mandroid7

I stated two facts.

What happened in your head upon reading those facts is on you.

I'll try again to explain my point as simply as possible.

Your claim such as it is regards Twitter removing posts, i.e. censorship (it's not, but let's not quibble).

You believe that Twitter only removes the posts of your side, and it's understandable that you don't like that.

However, removing posts as an act is the same no matter what post is renmoved.

ATS removes posts that don't fit their T&C; Twitter removes posts that don't fit their TOS.

You seem to be getting upset, which is unfortunate. It's not about what you think about me.

Clear?

originally posted by: badwhiskey
The Problem is whether a site is a publisher or a public forum. They can't have it both ways...

Currently, social media presents itself as a public forum which gets it certain protections but they are acting as publishers by censoring.

Either they choose to be and act like a public forum and be afforded some protections, or they choose to be a publisher and censor all they want but be responsible for everything.

... and why is it only one of those two choices?

We used to call that a false dichotomy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You stated zero facts. I have no "side"
I hate both parties

It is incredibly ignorant to compare post removal due to ats t&c violations with censorship of political ideology across all the sm platforms.

You are bordering on dishonest here bud.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Gryphon66

You stated zero facts. I have no "side"
I hate both parties

It is incredibly ignorant to compare post removal due to ats t&c violations with censorship of political ideology across all the sm platforms.

You are bordering on dishonest here bud.

Twitter bans people based on ideology.
ATS bans people based on violating terms.

Which one of the above opinions of yours can you back up with facts?

Neither, they are both derived from your feelings.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Gryphon66

You stated zero facts. I have no "side"
I hate both parties

It is incredibly ignorant to compare post removal due to ats t&c violations with censorship of political ideology across all the sm platforms.

You are bordering on dishonest here bud.

That's your opinion. Thanks for the chat.

/shrug

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

What if my ideology is something that goes against ats t&c? Wouldn't they be banning me for my ideology if I was banned for posting something like that?

Also, before you say it's not the same...

If I was say a rasta and started going off about weed and my religion and how god gave the earth weed as medicine and made threads about that and posted about it...I'd be banned because talking about weed that way is against ATS's t&c. They don't give a # whether it's my ideology or not.

The matter here is "censorship" which is the removal of posts or tweets.

The question is not "does Twitter censor conservatives."

The question is whether one opposes arbitrary government control of private industry.

Arguing that the government should interfere in Twitter's business model seems anti-freedom, anti-Constitution and pro-socialism.

It's irrational.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No problem, it always feels good to help out people who are lost.

If twitter announced from the getgo they were going to be a propaganda machine for the left, it would have never gotten that big to begin with. Same with facebook. Same with youtube. They changed the rules after they got too big to fail, from being a digital public square, to being an echo chamber. That is why people don't like it. Or at least the people who now find themselves being censored and banned for doing the same thing they been doing there for years don't like it.

a reply to: dug88

Ats has stated drug talk policy in t&c's

Social media has no t&c's stating you can't post anything other than the neoliberal viewpoint.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy
Who am I kidding though. Only someone that actually cared about freedom would care about net neutrality.

Net neutrality was/is one of those nonsensical contrarian terms that means the opposite of what you think it means, like the Patriot Act.

The internet flourished without it up until 2015.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: tanstaafl
If you haven't read the t&c then how do you know that they are not doing this?

I'm n ot talking about the nonsensical encrypted legales hidden inside mountains of ToS.

I'm talking about simple rules written in plain english that anyone can read in 3 minutes or less.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
take responsibility for ourselves

HA A HA HA HA HA HAHA

That gave me a good chuckle. The Majority of American's absolutely refuse to take responsibility for themselves. It's always someone else fault. I won't say who but we all know the types of people who feel they are owed a living.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I won't say who but we all know the types of people who feel they are owed a living.

And, why won't you say? Hmmmm??

a reply to: Gryphon66
Got called out after I posted the OP, so I'm still catching up...

Here's my radical suggestion: as Americans, why don't we take responsibility for ourselves and stop asking the Nanny State and all those Big Bad Ol' Corporations to do it for us?

Because we have a whole generation of people who think they need that nanny state. Personal responsibility has become this convoluted concept they can't seem to fully grasp. Censorship has somehow become en vogue because free speech hurts peoples feelings. Kind of like diversity over merit.

If Twitter pisses you off, don't use it. It's not magic.

If Americans had this kind of discipline this country would be a different place right now. "No, twitter needs to change, not me".

originally posted by: Klassified
The Donald's promise to veto an upcoming defense bill if it doesn't nix section 230...

The whole world would be in a better place if he nixed the bill.

If I was President, and you wanted a bill like this signed, there'd have to be a trade. I'd take a law that says all other laws must sunset every five years unless they are individually re-legislated. That should have been part of the Constitution if you ask me.

a reply to: Snarl

If I was President, and you wanted a bill like this signed, there'd have to be a trade. I'd take a law that says all other laws must sunset every five years unless they are individually re-legislated. That should have been part of the Constitution if you ask me.

This would require our public servants to actually do what we pay them to do, their jobs. Not gonna happen.