[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

samUwell said:
The question has now morphed into discussing whether or not these platforms are akin to public spaces. Yes, the servers are owned and operated by publically traded corporations but in a way, so are towns, cities, and states, and they cannot deny someone a platform to their speech; and that these publically accessible platforms need to be treated as public space. What these companies provide is a public communication tool, and people are being denied due to wrong-think. I would like to see the financial records on how much tax dollars went to these corporations or tax benefits.

Not too sure how I feel about this but I can see the argument. This has the potential to be abused beyond anything we can imagine.

FB wants to unleash a digital coin to remove paper money (the EU is hurrying to remove physical money) and what happens when you are banned from FB? There was a protest the other day at MasterCard by a bunch of Soros funded groups to force MC to deny people the ability to use MC in their transactions due to 'wrong-think'. Thankfully, MC did not go along with it the left is doing everything they can to force these financial companies to not allow the right the ability to use their payment services or banking.

Leftist Activists FORCE Mastercard To Vote On Banning The Far Right.

This is no longer about capitalism or the free market, this is about totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

well tbf.. if you ban the right from being able to use credit and then tell them they cant buy shit without credit.. and they are the ones with the guns.....

can u imagine the outcome..
 
Do you even get what it is?

Totally wrong," says Wyden. "Section 230 has nothing to do with neutrality. Nothing. Zip. There is absolutely no weight to that argument."

What the law does imply, according to Wyden, is that conservative blogs and websites can put their point of view out into the marketplace, "where users and consumers will make judgments about it." In other words, you have a right to speech online, but not a right to get your speech hosted on anyone else's website. The same is true for liberal perspectives online. "It's about making sure that all the voices get heard," Wyden says.

Removing 230 is actually anti free speech/libertarian


I honestly dont think amram grasps any of what hes talking about and just goes ohh google is from california reeeee
 
Wahhhh free markets ended up sorting things out on their own whod of thought ? But its not what we wanted so now lets go back and rewrite the laws (written by republicans)

,:lol:
 
Hellsfury said:
If that is the case, then they should be prepared to give up their immunity from liability and then they can act on their bias all they want. However they are currently benefiting from an immensely profitable advantage afforded to them by law which exempts them from liability in the interests of the greater public good.
Click to expand...

what is this nonsense that you are talking about? the law exempts platforms from liability in the case some random user uploads something illegal. this stupid ass notion that they become a "publisher" and lose this protection if they decide to curate content is a complete fantasy (and will have zero effect on google's search engine - it affects things like youtube). even if it were true, it would mean that the government could charge company X with a crime for hosting something illegal that someone else uploaded. the idea of doing that is silly which is why the law was created.

the laws you should be paying attention to are anti-trust laws.
 
0zlrs3bk1y631.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top