121–130 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does your country have an army? A police force?
I'd consider that violence a necessary evil, not good. And certainly not to be glorified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't like how a corporations handles speech you don't need to use their services. The social media corporations are not being controlled at this point by the government and these issues of free speech are being implemented not because of the will of the government but because they are wanted by the consumers (even if it doesn't seem that way here). Consumers should be able to use the services they want and th…
> If you don't like how a corporations handles speech you don't need to use their services. And what are the alternative services that these people should use? Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. simply don't have any alternatives that are widely used or credible.
What wicked webs they weave. Are they gonna ban the sjws and alt rights alike... Triggereds
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know that Twitter is willing to ban US political ads that violate their personal values. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-bl...
That ad was rejected because of a line that was linked libelously untruthful. In the article you linked it says that Twitter would run the ad with the offending line edited out. I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.
Scandalous? Yes. Libelous? The NY Times described the practice:
> Companies that obtain [fetal] tissue from clinics and sell it to laboratories exist in a gray zone, legally. Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping.
> ...
> Many [labs] buy the tissue from companies that act as middlemen. Those companies pay small fees, usually $100 or less a specimen, to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, who say they charge only what they need to cover their expenses. The companies then process the tissue and sell it to researchers for higher prices that reflect the processing.
> The fees, which can run to thousands of dollars for a tiny vial of cells, do not break the law, according to Arthur Caplan, the director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center.
> “It appears to be legal, no matter how much you charge,” Dr. Caplan said, adding that there appears to be little or no oversight of the processing fees. “It’s a very gray and musty area as to what you can charge.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/health/fetal-tissue-from-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You absolutely can, in a boxing ring for example. It's not unconstrained violence if it takes place within a framework of rules - i.e. it's a sport. NFL tackles being the same thing. A Twitter feed showing _only_ illegal violent NFL tackles? Well, that might just get banned now.
You said "unconstrained", but that's not what this is about. I agree that Twitter has just entered a completely unwinnable situation, and they made a mistake because nothing they do will be balanced by everyone's definition. I'm saying the "it's not violence if it's consensual" point is ridiculous and wrong. Additionally, and perhaps obviously, I was talking about a duel , not a sport [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.or…
> "it's not violence if it's consensual" point is ridiculous and wrong.
Exactly - provided that it's done outside the boundaries of some sport. But I think an actual lawyer would need to say what that means: could you and I, for example, create a new sport called "Modern Dueling" and construct a set of rules for it which permits us to fight to the death in a seemingly regulated fashion? Almost certainly not: no reasonable person would consent to be bound by those rules. Yet people do die in MMA, for example, and charges are not bought. It's part of the accepted risk of the sport which is regulated and refereed to prevent lasting harm to participants.
Would two knuckleheads who decided to dress up in NFL gear and run full tilt at each other in a parking lot face charges? What if one of them died? I'd guess yes. Again, I agree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That ad was rejected because of a line that was linked libelously untruthful. In the article you linked it says that Twitter would run the ad with the offending line edited out. I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.
You're talking about the "sale of baby body parts", right? Scandalous? Yes. Libelous? The NY Times described the practice: > Companies that obtain [fetal] tissue from clinics and sell it to laboratories exist in a gray zone, legally. Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping. > ... > Many [labs] buy the tissue from com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm I misread your comment. Still, a private company can do whatever it wants. Fact is, regardless, Twitter will never censor Trump or it’ll be the end of Twitter. But still, it’s a private company that’s not FCC regulated (yet).
Sure, Twitter is currently a private company. However, it's also a major forum used in the expression of speech in our country. At what point is a public website considered a public forum? If we have a constitutional right to free speech, and the majority of Americans use a certain website for speech, why shouldn't their constitutional rights extend onto that site?
Because their involvement with Twitter is at will, because Twitter is a private institution, and because privacy is scared to our freedom. But mostly perhaps because twitter has not yet been designated a common carrier by the government, which many people are suggesting. I don’t really see twitter as a good fit for that, but then again, I’m not a legal scholar or lawmaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know that Twitter is willing to ban US political ads that violate their personal values. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-bl...
That ad was rejected because of a line that was linked libelously untruthful. In the article you linked it says that Twitter would run the ad with the offending line edited out. I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is absolute doublespeak. Twitter's not 'enforcing' anything, and as others have pointed out, they are actually making the situation worse. Now it's clear that even Twitter says if you're rich and famous you can be abusive without the same consequences as someone who is not wealthy. Ridiculous. Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to c…
> Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane. Trump is the elected president of USA, one of the most important country on Earth. The fact that you suggest a private company should police his speak is insane to me.
Fun aside, as being forced to house soldiers on your property is enumerated as forbidden, and that the president is the commander in chief, does that mean Twitter could kick him out based on that?