Originally Posted by cael

oh no, pain is coming for big tech !

trust the plan

libel = Drop# 818
23 Feb 2018 - 6:50:22 PM

o boy is this the big one ?!

Originally Posted by Fool

Pagy would you like to clarify whether or not you know the difference between a windstorm and a category 5 hurricane or are you going to keep dodging!? Also please preemptively clarify whatever nonsense I'm going to throw at you next.

Chief ****wit over here white knighting for his bestie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNFBzeCtmN8

You've spent three years shouting that russians had invaded our government and now you're throwing out asinine tangents about the wind.

Its obvious that the election must be postponed

this election simply can't go on until twitter is a government run service !

Why aren't we voting via twitter? It's instant and impossible to interfere with.

i can't wait till they start annotating tweets with information about cleaning your lungs with lysol and hydroxychloroquine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGb21qx4kM


Jack Dorsey and Twitter is fact-checking inconvenient truths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkLuXvIxFew

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

wow they're extra serious this time, official stationary and all

i can't wait till i check in to adx florence tehvul i hope u visit me while im in jail with the rest of the deep state and (((them)))

my caveat
we are looking to protect
the public speaking arena
free protected speech

that doesn't quite roll off my constitutionalist tongue

the solution is more government

me n the bernie bros have been saying this the whole time

wonder how much money rayn has

Originally Posted by Got Haggis?

wonder how much money rayn has

r u gonna sue him

comes off as a veiled threat

wait wasn't there a whole controversy years ago because if social media was considered a publisher it would be liable for everything posted and that was big bad anti-free speech

am i reading the proposed law wrong or does it seem like its trying to make them publishers again



we all grew up with disclaimers about various claims in ads etc, 'the opinions presented in this advertisement do not reflect reality blah blah'

can we not just put a disclaimer that everything that everyone says is their own opinion no matter how tarded it is

then all social media can have the high quailty discussions found in youtube live chat

Originally Posted by Groove

wait wasn't there a whole controversy years ago because if social media was considered a publisher it would be liable for everything posted and that was big bad anti-free speech

am i reading the proposed law wrong or does it seem like its trying to make them publishers again



we all grew up with disclaimers about various claims in ads etc, 'the opinions presented in this advertisement do not reflect reality blah blah'

can we not just put a disclaimer that everything that everyone says is their own opinion no matter how tarded it is

then all social media can have the high quailty discussions found in youtube live chat

No, the intent is to make it absolutely clear to FB, Twitter, YT, and others that your policies can cover removing posts that are vulgar, porn, etc. but you can't remove it just because you don't like it. Conspiracy YT channels are not illegal, so posting one on a platform is legal. If you deny those people their free speech, you are violating their 1st amendment.

If the gov't clearly defines what these platforms can and can't edit/deny and those rules are in line with the bill of rights, we are all better for it.

Originally Posted by Pagy

oh good, more hyperpartisan trump obsessed drivel

from the Canadian reeing relentlessly itt lol