11 Jan 22
There's actually an informative and solid exchange in this thread from about pages 4-6 between sh76 and vivify that break down the nuances of this issue. By gosh, a real debate with pointed commentary and good logical arguments.
Of course you might have missed it with all the spamming about VAERS getting canceled by the radical leftists.
@wildgrass saidThis is not about the first amendment. I think you are interchanging different terms as if they mean the same thing....If you had the power...
And therein lies the rub. Conservatives screaming "What about the first amendment?" when their twitter feed is disabled for a few hours because they constantly post puke or they lose a book deal for inciting a riot or whatever they're whining about are really mad that they've lost the power to control who hears their whining.
St ...[text shortened]... e powerful rich company. Government could end twitter if they wanted to but the whining is more fun.
"Government could end twitter if they wanted to but the whining is more fun."
Of course they could. Why do you think government is able to force them to censor certain things they normally would not care about? All they have to do is threaten regulation and breaking up the company. Then they will censor anything they are told to. It is in their own interest to play ball.
11 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidYawn.
Is that why you seem incapable of quoting the article with that same quote?
You made it up, didn't you?
Someone too stupid to read a disclosure on the main page of website is not worth the time.
11 Jan 22
@vivify saidThe irony.
Yawn.
Someone too stupid to read a disclosure on the main page of website is not worth the time.
Then why are you so concerned with people who are too stupid to read a disclosure on the main page of a website? Do you really think those stupid people need you to hold their hands?
Do you feel threatened by stupid people? Are they more clever than you?
@wildgrass saidYeah, it was fun while it lasted. 😉
There's actually an informative and solid exchange in this thread from about pages 4-6 between sh76 and vivify that break down the nuances of this issue. By gosh, a real debate with pointed commentary and good logical arguments.
Of course you might have missed it with all the spamming about VAERS getting canceled by the radical leftists.
11 Jan 22
@sh76 saidIsn't calling Ivermectin prescribed by a doctor for human use a horse de-wormer defamatory? Should Joe Rogan sue CNN?
Right, but calling that defamation and analogizing the shop to Twitter would essentially shut down Twitter, or at least force it to drastically change its model.
Does CNN have an incentive to drastically change its model?
11 Jan 22
@averagejoe1 saidThen government should have no say.
Vivify is correct. As much as you all hate it, the govt has no say. Such entities as the subjects of this thread can do what the hell they want to, .... look to the constitution for confirmation (you can find it on the internet).
So, Kevin and I open up out own platform (I hope I used that word right) and get people rapping. Who here has a problem with that?? ...[text shortened]... ys MB is a slug and does not work for his money. can MB sue him on the Forum?
What is going on ?
Joe Biden overtly pressured facebook to censor more information. He said facebook was killing people. Biden is the top government official. That is government trying to have a say.
12 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidI don't think it's defamatory to call Ivermectin a horse-dewormer. Ivermectin is not a person. It can't be defamed (not that being a horse de-wormer is a bad thing). Even if it were, Joe Rogan is not Ivermectin's representative. He has no standing to sue CNN for defaming Ivermectin.
Isn't calling Ivermectin prescribed by a doctor for human use a horse de-wormer defamatory? Should Joe Rogan sue CNN?
Does CNN have an incentive to drastically change its model?
Calling the doctor a quack for prescribing it? Closer, but still probably just an opinion.
Calling the doctor an attempter murderer for prescribing it? Now you may have a case.
12 Jan 22
@sh76 saidWhy would it shut Twitter down?
Right, but calling that defamation and analogizing the shop to Twitter would essentially shut down Twitter, or at least force it to drastically change its model.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
12 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidCorrect data + deliberate misinterpretation = lie.
VAERS data is NOT misinformation.
12 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidBecause then Twitter would be forced to moderate every post and be subject to liability for defamatory posts it fails to moderate. This would be an enormous cost for Twitter. It might adapt, but it would be extremely difficult.
Why would it shut Twitter down?
13 Jan 22
@shallow-blue saidProve that is the case.
Correct data + deliberate misinterpretation = lie.
What deliberate misinterpretation?
13 Jan 22
@wildgrass saidBetween a liberal and conservative.
There's actually an informative and solid exchange in this thread from about pages 4-6 between sh76 and vivify that break down the nuances of this issue. By gosh, a real debate with pointed commentary and good logical arguments.
See kids, it is possible.