Big Tech/Social Media Censorship. Musk/X Files Lawsuit Against Censorship Syndicate GARM

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

31 minutes ago, Doc said:

So apparently a BLM co-founder bought several million dollar homes. Now anybody talking about it on Twitter, Facebook, etc. are either being canceled or having their posts deleted. What is going on in this country?

 

https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/

[BillStime]

42 minutes ago, Doc said:

So apparently a BLM co-founder bought several million dollar homes. Now anybody talking about it on Twitter, Facebook, etc. are either being canceled or having their posts deleted. What is going on in this country?

 

I'm confused. Are black people not supposed to have money? Make money? Come from money? Use their college degrees to earn money?  Not spend money that they earned from authoring books?  I'm confused.  What's the issue here?

 

If she is stealing from the non profit that is one thing - and the NY post better come with receipts - but the woman runs a 501C3 and does not take a salary.

• And where the helll is the outrage from Trump screwing over donors earlier this year from the far right?
• Where is the outrage that the Trump Foundation ceases to exist because they used the funds as a personal piggy bank?
• Where is the outrage that none of the Trump family can run a non profit again in the state of NY.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - yet they never learn.

 

 

[BillStime]

PS: you would be shocked to see the salary of some of the largest non profits and foundations like American Red Cross, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association; etc. but the far right is zeroing in on BLM.  Anyone else shocked?

 

Nope.

 

[Doc]

28 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

I'm confused. Are black people not supposed to have money? Make money? Come from money? Use their college degrees to earn money?  Not spend money that they earned from authoring books?  I'm confused.  What's the issue here?

 

If she is stealing from the non profit that is one thing - and the NY post better come with receipts - but the woman runs a 501C3 and does not take a salary.

• And where the helll is the outrage from Trump screwing over donors earlier this year from the far right?
• Where is the outrage that the Trump Foundation ceases to exist because they used the funds as a personal piggy bank?
• Where is the outrage that none of the Trump family can run a non profit again in the state of NY.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - yet they never learn.

Regardless of whether you think that a Marxist should be buying million dollar homes, it’s still true news. There is no justification at all for banning people or removing posts.

[LeGOATski]

Stop spinning your wheels with Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc. Just read neutral stories directly from the source. People are giving social media its power and then complaining when it wields that power... 🤷‍♂️

 

Your life will be much better without social media.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

Stop spinning your wheels with Facebook, Twitter, IG, etc. Just read neutral stories directly from the source. People are giving social media its power and then complaining when it wields that power... 🤷‍♂️

 

Your life will be much better without social media.

Talking about them doesn’t give them power. The ability to censor whoever they want with impunity does. And that’s the point.

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

Talking about them doesn’t give them power. The ability to censor whoever they want with impunity does. And that’s the point.

I don’t see how this is any different than a baker denying service to a gay couple or Arkansas allowing doctors to refuse to treat someone because of moral or religious objections.

[aristocrat]

23 minutes ago, BillStime said:

I don’t see how this is any different than a baker denying service to a gay couple or Arkansas allowing doctors to refuse to treat someone because of moral or religious objections.

The last four years showed you could literally post anything you want about trump no matter what. The second you bring up possible criticism of the left they start to ban you.  

[Backintheday544]

34 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

The last four years showed you could literally post anything you want about trump no matter what. The second you bring up possible criticism of the left they start to ban you.  

No true, but let’s say it is. Why should you be able to tell a private company who can or cannot use their service?

 

Its the same thing the other poster brought up with their cases. If you were okay with a private company banning a gay couple from getting their cakes then you should be fine with a private company banning people.

[Buffarukus]

30 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

No true, but let’s say it is. Why should you be able to tell a private company who can or cannot use their service?

 

Its the same thing the other poster brought up with their cases. If you were okay with a private company banning a gay couple from getting their cakes then you should be fine with a private company banning people.

 

because those private companies are juggernauts and everyone knows it 

 

i see the baker example used.

 

if bakers owned multi billion/trillion dollar companies and used there power and influence IN TADEM to crush or absorb up and coming bakers with a clear agenda to stop anyone from baking a gay cake. with the bonus of having special governmental provisions no one else has.

 

then we can compare the two. 

 

way to many monopolies in this country. our leadership keeps conviently forgetting capitalism's history and why anti monopoly laws exist. too big to fail is the new excuse to rape the treasury and american worker. 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Backintheday544]

2 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

because those private companies are juggernauts and everyone knows it 

 

i see the baker example used.

 

if bakers owned multi billion dollar companies and used there power and influence IN TADEM to crush or absorb up and coming bakers with a clear agenda to stop anyone from baking a gay cake. with the bonus of having special governmental provisions

 

then we can compare the two. 

 

way to many monopolies in this country. our leadership keeps conviently forgetting capitalism's history and why anti monopoly laws exist. too big to fail is the new excuse to rape the treasury. 

Then it’s an issue with monopolies not an issue that companies can choose who can or cannot use their services.

 

So should once you become a certain size mean everyone has to be allowed to use your service? 

[Buffarukus]

16 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Then it’s an issue with monopolies not an issue that companies can choose who can or cannot use their services.

 

So should once you become a certain size mean everyone has to be allowed to use your service? 

 

well whatever monopoly laws should be enforced and these guys should be broken up first of all. second they dont have any clear terms of service or are not transparent in how they are applied. it seems to be at will.

 

when you deal in the assumption you are a platform then you are just the host. anything not illegal is protected. if you are a publisher you can pick and choose what you want...like they are doing but also responsable for whats published. they get both. claim platform but act like a publisher. 

 

its pretty sick its been allowed to get this far especially when the parler takedown was found to be false. people still dont care 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Backintheday544]

2 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

well whatever monopoly laws should be enforced and these guys should be broken up first of all. second they dont have any clear terms of service or are not transparent in how they are applied. it seems to be at will.

 

when you deal in the assumption you are a platform then you are just the host. anything not illegal is protected. if you are a publisher you can pick and choose what you want...like they are doing but also responsable for whats published. they get both. claim platform but act like a publisher. 

 

its pretty sick its been allowed to get this far especially when the parler takedown was found to be false. people still dont care 🤷‍♂️ 

Monopoly laws are a different issue. Not sure how you’d break up a Twitter?

 

Id argue Twitters terms of service are more clean and can be accessed easily. Yea, I just googled Twitters Terms of Service and it was the first link: https://twitter.com/en/tos

 

To echo back to the bakers, they didn’t have clear terms of service. I googled anti-gay baker terms of service and I can’t find them. So I’m not sure how they apply their rules.

 

Theres also if a person is part of a protected group. Typically we have protected groups of: race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex (gender), sexual orientation, physical or mental disability. Party affiliation is not a protected group.

 

If you want a bakery to be able to say I don’t want a gay couple to use my service, you should also be ok with Twitter saying I don’t want so and so right wing person using my service.

[Buffarukus]

32 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Monopoly laws are a different issue. Not sure how you’d break up a Twitter?

 

Id argue Twitters terms of service are more clean and can be accessed easily. Yea, I just googled Twitters Terms of Service and it was the first link: https://twitter.com/en/tos

 

To echo back to the bakers, they didn’t have clear terms of service. I googled anti-gay baker terms of service and I can’t find them. So I’m not sure how they apply their rules.

 

Theres also if a person is part of a protected group. Typically we have protected groups of: race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex (gender), sexual orientation, physical or mental disability. Party affiliation is not a protected group.

 

If you want a bakery to be able to say I don’t want a gay couple to use my service, you should also be ok with Twitter saying I don’t want so and so right wing person using my service.

 

if you think twitter has clear cut terms of service, are transparent in applying them then you are only looking at the surface. if you have a few hours to kill watch this episode with Twitter CEO jack dorsey. its long but very informative. also note it was years ago. nothing has changed, only intensified. 

 

watch it or just believe me lol. its right out of the horses mouth which is why i find it credible 

 

party affiliation is a protected group. its called freedom of speech and its a foundation of this country. there are no terms of service that state if you are conservative we can delete you even though many seem to want to go down that path and have no issue when it happens.

 

lastly you are missing the point i made. if i want a cake and there is one giant cake store that denies me that also has power to prevent me to get cake elsewhere while also lobbying my credit card to cancel me if i order one while also hiding info on any competition that WOULD be willing to make a cake. i think its a problem.

 

i dont think you understand how much power these tech companies have and how they are using it as a collective.

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Backintheday544]

33 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

if you think twitter has clear cut terms of service, are transparent in applying them then you are only looking at the surface. if you have a few hours to kill watch this episode with Twitter CEO jack dorsey. its long but very informative. also note it was years ago. nothing has changed, only intensified. 

 

watch it or just believe me lol. its right out of the horses mouth which is why i find it credible 

 

party affiliation is a protected group. its called freedom of speech and its a foundation of this country. there are no terms of service that state if you are conservative we can delete you even though many seem to want to go down that path and have no issue when it happens.

 

lastly you are missing the point i made. if i want a cake and there is one giant cake store that denies me that also has power to prevent me to get cake elsewhere while also lobbying my credit card to cancel me if i order one while also hiding info on any competition that WOULD be willing to make a cake. i think its a problem.

 

i dont think you understand how much power these tech companies have and how they are using it as a collective.

 

 

 

I think an underlying issue a lot of my friends here on the right have is missing a basic understanding of law in the US.

 

When I say protected groups I’m referencing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its various expansions. The protected groups are what I listed before and party affiliation is not one of them.

 

Your second paragraph misinterprets the first amendment. We have a freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means freedom to express oneself without government repercussions. The first amendment does not apply to private businesses and allowing people on their platform to speak.

 

We can look at the wording: “Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.“ Twitter isn’t Congress.” If the government stepped in and said Twitter you can’t block conservatives, that would be more of a violation of the freedom of speech clause them Twitter blocking conservatives.

 

To your point, then get mad that it’s a monopoly and wrote your Congress person to look at monopolistic practices. It’s not a freedom of speech issue and Twitter is fine blocking whoever they want.

[LeGOATski]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

Talking about them doesn’t give them power. The ability to censor whoever they want with impunity does. And that’s the point.

Big story! Private company controls what's broadcast across their platform

 

If you don't like how Facebook controls its own platform, then leave Facebook. You don't have ultimate control over what you put on there. It's not your own personal site.

Edited April 17, 2021 by LeGOATski

[LeGOATski]

1 hour ago, Buffarukus said:

anything not illegal is protected.

Link?

 

I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to be offensive, but any platform can shut a user down for being offensive. 

 

Bottom line is that we're trying to control these private companies; maybe even want the government to control them, but that is all sorts of wrong.

 

Facebook is driven by what their consumers want and that's the way it should be. Their decisions are based on money. So if they're mass-blocking certain stories like, it's because it affects their bottom dollar.

[Buffarukus]

3 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

I think an underlying issue a lot of my friends here on the right have is missing a basic understanding of law in the US.

 

When I say protected groups I’m referencing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its various expansions. The protected groups are what I listed before and party affiliation is not one of them.

 

Your second paragraph misinterprets the first amendment. We have a freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means freedom to express oneself without government repercussions. The first amendment does not apply to private businesses and allowing people on their platform to speak.

 

We can look at the wording: “Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.“ Twitter isn’t Congress.” If the government stepped in and said Twitter you can’t block conservatives, that would be more of a violation of the freedom of speech clause them Twitter blocking conservatives.

 

To your point, then get mad that it’s a monopoly and wrote your Congress person to look at monopolistic practices. It’s not a freedom of speech issue and Twitter is fine blocking whoever they want.

 

i am mad they are a monopoly which is why I'm speaking out about it. ill try to leave that part out.

 

you seem to be overlooking my point. terms of service are made as a agreement to the users. you saying the largest platforms in the world can arbitrarily pick and choose what people can or cannot speak about even when they are ABIDING to that agreement is not a good stance to take imo. not only this but you also think its ok to administer the rules everyone agrees to unfairly? when the buisness is information that is incredably dangerous stance. your giving companies that have special protections by the government zero standards or ethics to abide by and seem to be offering corporations complete autonomy. 

 

under your line of thinking you are perfectly fine with companies discriminating for any reason really, as long as it is not strictly covered by the law. so if a black man walks into a restaurant that has agreed sneakers are ok. a owner can kick him out because he doesnt allow "nike" sneekers. the black guy says hey there are five guys wearing nikes right there. sorry as a buisness i can do want. id like you to know you are not being kicked out for your race..its our new nike policy i decided on. whats that? you are talking about abortion at a table. please leave your no longer welcome here. shall i go on?

 

these are pretty extreme examples but so is blocking a story by a established publication to prevent the information from reaching the public during a democratic election. so is making death threats to children for being "racist" by standing in front of a indian. so is allowing advertising for get togethers that repeatedly result in courthouses being attacked and attempting to burn people alive in the building. so is comparing people you simply disagree with  the worst murdous scumbags from germany. all things twitter allow that goes against there very own tos and leads to actual broken laws.

 

but...free market. 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Buffarukus]

15 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Link?

 

I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to be offensive, but any platform can shut a user down for being offensive. 

 

Bottom line is that we're trying to control these private companies; maybe even want the government to control them, but that is all sorts of wrong.

 

Facebook is driven by what their consumers want and that's the way it should be. Their decisions are based on money. So if they're mass-blocking certain stories like, it's because it affects their bottom dollar.

 

sorry you may have caught me in a edit. what was the context for that quote you want a link for.

 

speaking of which. 

edit: so i see what i wrote. you want a link to what is expected of websites when it comes to its operation as a platform?

 

heres the first article i found.

 

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

 

offensive is a pretty loose term. if you think a company should ban people for this then its free reign to do as they please. that can defined as anything really.  

 

as for the rest read my previous response. more input and conversations are a good thing even if we don't agree.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Backintheday544]

5 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

 

i am mad they are a monopoly which is why I'm speaking out about it. ill try to leave that part out.

 

you seem to be overlooking my point. terms of service are made as a agreement to the users. you saying the largest platforms in the world can arbitrarily pick and choose what people can or cannot speak about even when they are ABIDING to that agreement is not a good stance to take imo. not only this but you also think its ok to administer the rules everyone agrees to unfairly? when the buisness is information that is incredably dangerous stance. your giving companies that have special protections by the government zero standards or ethics to abide by and seem to be offering corporations complete autonomy. 

 

under your line of thinking you are perfectly fine with companies discriminating for any reason really, as long as it is not strictly covered by the law. so if a black man walks into a restaurant that has agreed sneakers are ok. a owner can kick him out because he doesnt allow "nike" sneekers. the black guy says hey there are five guys wearing nikes right there. sorry as a buisness i can do want. id like you to know you are not being kicked out for your race..its our new nike policy i decided on. whats that? you are talking about abortion at a table. please leave your no longer welcome here. shall i go on?

 

these are pretty extreme examples but so is blocking a story by a established publication to prevent the information from reaching the public during a democratic election. so is making death threats to children for being "racist" by standing in front of a indian. so is allowing advertising for get togethers that repeatedly result in courthouses being attacked and attempting to burn people alive in the building. so is comparing people you simply disagree with  the worst murdous scumbags from germany. all things twitter allow that goes against there very own tos and leads to actual broken laws.

 

but...free market. 

 

 

I don’t agree with it. I’m just saying the analogy to the bakers is apt. Republicans who celebrated the bakers discriminatory policies should be celebrating Twitter kicking people they don’t agree with off.