TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
shake d livin wake d dead wrote:https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html
Walks away into sunset
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:16 cycles wrote:Decision on impeachment lies with Pence tomorrow?
Yes and he's not going to invoke the 25th Amendment
After Parler was banned on both the Apple and Google app stores for failing to curb violent and threatening content on its platform, the social media site is now completely offline as a result of Amazon terminating Parler’s web hosting services.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
That site is not reachable by Google Chrome, Safari or even Firefox
The_Honourable wrote:Type in #noflylist on facebook search and check dem videos.
sMASH wrote:the social media platforms taking a big step in my view. censoring what people see according to what they deem worthy or not, np. but once u do that, do they accept allll responsibility and culpability for alll that is on their websites/apps? cause, they are still private businesses.
cause, ive always said that they are private businesses, and as such can chose what goes up and whats taken down. but when u do that, u accept responsibility for what is on there, because u actively curate the content.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:sMASH wrote:the social media platforms taking a big step in my view. censoring what people see according to what they deem worthy or not, np. but once u do that, do they accept allll responsibility and culpability for alll that is on their websites/apps? cause, they are still private businesses.
cause, ive always said that they are private businesses, and as such can chose what goes up and whats taken down. but when u do that, u accept responsibility for what is on there, because u actively curate the content.
Your logic is flawed.
Section 230 ensures that they are not liable for the content on their site however they can choose to remove any content they deem not in accordance with their terms of service. The same way they can remove hate speech, illegal activity etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
They are within their rights to do so
Actually, the very first thing that you stated is wrong.sMASH wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:sMASH wrote:the social media platforms taking a big step in my view. censoring what people see according to what they deem worthy or not, np. but once u do that, do they accept allll responsibility and culpability for alll that is on their websites/apps? cause, they are still private businesses.
cause, ive always said that they are private businesses, and as such can chose what goes up and whats taken down. but when u do that, u accept responsibility for what is on there, because u actively curate the content.
Your logic is flawed.
Section 230 ensures that they are not liable for the content on their site however they can choose to remove any content they deem not in accordance with their terms of service. The same way they can remove hate speech, illegal activity etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
They are within their rights to do so
thats not the logic, that is the legality. those are different things. i can understand if they can remove things not allowed by law, regular law, not specific to facebook. that law cited is just saying they have the right to curate what is posted on their site. i have np with that, except, if u can dictate what gets seen and what doesnt get seen, for what ever reason, should u not be culpable for what gets seen.. since u have to right to dictate what is seen?
one test of the system is, if they remove something that does not violate their terms of service, can someone sue them to replace it?
my personal view, they are all private businesses, so can pick and choose what they want to get seen. up to u to opt in. they can make a term of service that u have to post a pic of u with a coconut every tuesday, or u get booted out, its their right.
You talk like you know what is but you don't. The immunity is by law so that people like you can post whatever they want.sMASH wrote:the law is an ass. moving on.
sMASH wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:sMASH wrote:the social media platforms taking a big step in my view. censoring what people see according to what they deem worthy or not, np. but once u do that, do they accept allll responsibility and culpability for alll that is on their websites/apps? cause, they are still private businesses.
cause, ive always said that they are private businesses, and as such can chose what goes up and whats taken down. but when u do that, u accept responsibility for what is on there, because u actively curate the content.
Your logic is flawed.
Section 230 ensures that they are not liable for the content on their site however they can choose to remove any content they deem not in accordance with their terms of service. The same way they can remove hate speech, illegal activity etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
They are within their rights to do so
thats not the logic, that is the legality. those are different things. i can understand if they can remove things not allowed by law, regular law, not specific to facebook. that law cited is just saying they have the right to curate what is posted on their site. i have np with that, except, if u can dictate what gets seen and what doesnt get seen, for what ever reason, should u not be culpable for what gets seen.. since u have to right to dictate what is seen?
one test of the system is, if they remove something that does not violate their terms of service, can someone sue them to replace it?
my personal view, they are all private businesses, so can pick and choose what they want to get seen. up to u to opt in. they can make a term of service that u have to post a pic of u with a coconut every tuesday, or u get booted out, its their right.
redmanjp wrote:some of those vids are not related to the Capitol riots
adnj wrote:sMASH wrote:They are not choosing what to post. They are choosing to REMOVE
While understanding that you may be trying to show that these are justifiably the same things, they are not. You have given a false equivalence here.Les Bain wrote:One person best summed up the social media blackout as such:
Social media company = bakery
Alt-right community = gay couple ordering a custom cake.
Right wingers and religious folks were totally on the side of the bakery that refused the gay couple buy have a hard time transposing the fact of owner's discretion to social media companies. Would you then find fault with tuner mods for banning ED for posting his personal porn stash here on General Election night?
adnj wrote:While understanding that you may be trying to show that these are justifiably the same things, they are not. You have given a false equivalence here.Les Bain wrote:One person best summed up the social media blackout as such:
Social media company = bakery
Alt-right community = gay couple ordering a custom cake.
Right wingers and religious folks were totally on the side of the bakery that refused the gay couple buy have a hard time transposing the fact of owner's discretion to social media companies. Would you then find fault with tuner mods for banning ED for posting his personal porn stash here on General Election night?
There is wide ranging confusion on this issue. Social media doesn't have an editor, proof reader or typesetter that is between the original poster and the published media. With none of those, the responsibility of publishing lies solely with the original poster.
Social media does have a censorship function, and it is that censorship that is currently in the spotlight. The equitable application of censorship by social media platforms will very likely see new legislation passed.
In the opinion for case that you cite, Justice Kennedy stated that the decision was not far reaching and was specific to the question of whether the State can create laws that infringe upon religious freedoms. He went on to write:
"The court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.”
“Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:redmanjp wrote:some of those vids are not related to the Capitol riots
what are they related to?
A video of a distressed man yelling in an airport has gone viral, and in some cases, it’s wrongly being connected to the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6.
"F--- every single one of you," the man says in a TikTok video. "This is what they do to us. They kicked me off the plane. They called me a f------ terrorist."
Another person can be heard asking him to please calm down and saying that she was kicked off a Delta flight earlier.
Some social media users are mischaracterizing why the man is upset.
"People who broke into the Capitol Wednesday are now learning they are on no-fly lists pending the full investigation," one Facebook post said. "They are not happy about this."
This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
But the TikTok user who published the video didn’t say the man was upset because he was on the no-fly list, a Department of Homeland Security database of "known or suspected terrorists."
Rather, the user said that he was upset because he was directed to wear a face covering.
"Homeboy had a full toddler level meltdown bc he was told to wear a mask," the Jan. 10 TikTok post said.
USA Today reported that Delta removed two "unruly" passengers flying from Ronald Reagan Washington International Airport on Jan. 8.
Other airlines have reported difficult customers after the wake of the riot, including "non-mask compliant, rowdy, argumentative" passengers who harassed crew members on an Alaska Airlines flight from Washington Dulles International to Seattle, according to the story.
Separately, Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi and the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, released a statement on Jan. 7 urging the Transportation Security Administration and the FBI to add those involved in the attack on the Capitol to the no-fly list.
We reached out to Delta and the FBI about the claim in this Facebook post — and whether rioters have been added to the no-fly list — but did not immediately hear back.
However, there’s nothing to support the allegation in the post.
First, the TikTok user who posted the video said that the man was upset because he was kicked off his flight for not wearing a mask.
And second, if the man had been added to the no-fly list — a decision that’s made by the FBI and enforced by TSA — it doesn’t make sense that he would have made it to the boarding area, where this video was taken.
If someone is on the no-fly list, they can’t even get a boarding pass, which means he wouldn’t have made it to the gate.
We rate this post False.
This fact check is available at IFCN’s 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
redmanjp wrote:some of them i think were for not wearing masks. also i saw the one about the guy saying he's being treated like a black person a couple of months ago.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/11/facebook-posts/no-isnt-video-capitol-rioter-upset-because-hes-no-/
Les Bain wrote:adnj wrote:While understanding that you may be trying to show that these are justifiably the same things, they are not. You have given a false equivalence here.Les Bain wrote:One person best summed up the social media blackout as such:
Social media company = bakery
Alt-right community = gay couple ordering a custom cake.
Right wingers and religious folks were totally on the side of the bakery that refused the gay couple buy have a hard time transposing the fact of owner's discretion to social media companies. Would you then find fault with tuner mods for banning ED for posting his personal porn stash here on General Election night?
There is wide ranging confusion on this issue. Social media doesn't have an editor, proof reader or typesetter that is between the original poster and the published media. With none of those, the responsibility of publishing lies solely with the original poster.
Social media does have a censorship function, and it is that censorship that is currently in the spotlight. The equitable application of censorship by social media platforms will very likely see new legislation passed.
In the opinion for case that you cite, Justice Kennedy stated that the decision was not far reaching and was specific to the question of whether the State can create laws that infringe upon religious freedoms. He went on to write:
"The court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.”
“Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”
Since you put yourself in the position of the guy who rolls up to a debate and says "Actually...." what would be the appropriate way to treat with the F Your Feelings crowd demanding their right to internet free speech?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 184 guests
