ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

You already policed my speech, Jack

Twitter's Jack Dorsey has the gall to try to hide behind free speech in an attempt to prevent Congress from removing Twitter's ability to engage in the publisher/platform dance:

Section 230 is the Internet's most important law for free speech and safety. Weakening Section 230 protections will remove critical speech from the Internet.

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. People from around the world come together on Twitter in an open and free exchange of ideas. We want to make sure conversations on Twitter are healthy and that people feel safe to express their points of view. We do our work recognizing that free speech and safety are interconnected and can sometimes be at odds. We must ensure that all voices can be heard, and we continue to make improvements to our service so that everyone feels safe participating in the public conversation—whether they are speaking or simply listening. The protections offered by Section 230 help us achieve this important objective.

As we consider developing new legislative frameworks, or committing to self-regulation models for content moderation, we should remember that Section 230 has enabled new companies—small ones seeded with an idea—to build and compete with established companies globally. Eroding the foundation of Section 230 could collapse how we communicate on the Internet, leaving only a small number of giant and well-funded technology companies.

We should also be mindful that undermining Section 230 will result in far more removal of online speech and impose severe limitations on our collective ability to address harmful content and protect people online. I do not think anyone in this room or the American people want less free speech or more abuse and harassment online. Instead, what I hear from people is that they want to be able to trust the services they are using.

Twitter doesn't believe in free speech, Twitter believes in actively and aggressively policing speech. The God-Emperor is right when he calls for the repeal of Section 230. 

I was banned by Twitter, without cause and without any reason or justification given, years ago. So, I don't believe a single word that is coming out of Dorsey's mouth. The fact that he is defending Section 230 is sufficient reason to eliminate it.

 

Labels: , ,

80 Comments:

Blogger Dole October 28, 2020 1:20 PM  

And now the people who censor articles on Biden and our elected president pretend to care about free speech.

What desperation. The wrath of the God Emperor only grows when he reads blatant lies like the above.

Blogger Zach October 28, 2020 1:23 PM  

Every time I look at Twitter this week, there's some PSA at the top attempting to shape the election narrative.

"experts say voting by mail is secure and fraud-proof"

"remember, counting mail-in ballots takes time, so don't trust a candidate's declaration of victory"

Get bent, Jack.

Blogger Daniel October 28, 2020 1:29 PM  

Free speech, by definition, can't also be safe. He may as well have said that 230 ensures "Blasphemy and safety"

Blogger Teleros October 28, 2020 1:30 PM  

Torba & some of the others on Gab are pushing for enforcement of Section 230 rather than repeal or rewriting etc - ie an end to the publisher-platform dance:

https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/an-open-letter-to-president-trump-on-section-230
https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/the-repeal-section-230-narrative-is-being-pushed-by-silicon-valley

I think I'd rather go with his solution, just on the basis that it means less chance for lawmakers to mess things up, but that assumes it's actually a practical one.

Blogger Azimus October 28, 2020 1:36 PM  

"so that everyone feels safe"

People who don't feel safe anonymously perusing electronic text in an undisclosed location should probably be eliminated from the gene pool.

I think we need a better definition of "adult" than ">18.000yrs old".

Blogger Stryker4570 October 28, 2020 1:39 PM  

Notice the not so veiled threat if Section 230 is removed. "We should also be mindful that undermining Section 230 will result in far more removal of online speech," F%#*( these people...

Blogger Balkan Yankee October 28, 2020 1:43 PM  

This is Jack.

This is Jack's brain.

This is Jack's brain without self awareness.

Don't be Jack.

Blogger SemiSpook37 October 28, 2020 1:46 PM  

Legit question: Torba has been insisting repealing 230 is playing right into the hands of Dorsey and Zuckerberg. I don't agree (I'm with you on repeal; better just to muck the whole thing and at least attempt some sort of accountability). Why (aside from all of the other ways the barons in the Valley have gone after Gab) would Torba even think that he's a special case for why the section should stand?

Blogger Major Styles October 28, 2020 1:47 PM  

"experts say voting by mail is secure and fraud-proof"

Who are these (((experts)))?

Blogger Karen took the Kids October 28, 2020 1:50 PM  

"We want to make sure conversations on Twitter are healthy and that people feel safe to express their points of view"

Boilerplate SJW faggotry.

Blogger Grumbleduke October 28, 2020 1:54 PM  

First time I heard an explanation for why these people ("people") do the things they do. None of them is spending or an animal shelter, or another things people do without being payed.
And the reason for it is: that's not their money. Not their wealth.
They're slaves, sold or got stolen their souls.

Blogger VD October 28, 2020 1:55 PM  

Torba & some of the others on Gab

I could not care less what Torba or anyone on Gab thinks. He's wrong.

Blogger thechortling October 28, 2020 2:00 PM  

Jack looks like he had a binge last night.

I wish Cruz could have kept on the attack rather than letting Jack's mealy mouthed response stand. Let's see if the cucks cuck to the bitter end when their necks are chopped by social media. The Social Media giants are still learning how to manipulate. Give them a couple more years and they'll have exponentially more effective "algorithms" at sleight of hand filterinng and choking out any nuance of message they don't like.

Section 230 diapers need to come off these overgrown apes.

Blogger IAMSpartacus0000 October 28, 2020 2:02 PM  

They should keep 230 but add to it the requirement to comply with the 1st amendment and "public square" requirements. People then have the right to sue for violating first amendment protections.

Blogger Stilicho October 28, 2020 2:05 PM  

Every sentence in Dorsey's statement is a lie. Every single one. He didn't even tell the truth once by accident.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 28, 2020 2:07 PM  

Big Tech censors Gab because supposedly Torba does not police speech

Blogger Jeff aka Orville October 28, 2020 2:08 PM  

Jack lied under oath, so let's see if Ted has the stones to file charges.

Blogger kerdasi amaq October 28, 2020 2:11 PM  

What's the point of repealing Section 230? Twitter should be forced to declare whether they are a content provider or a publisher and be treated appropriately.

Same goes for YouTube.

Blogger David The Good October 28, 2020 2:18 PM  

What a weasel.

Blogger MarkyMark October 28, 2020 2:25 PM  

Vox, WHY do you think Torba is wrong? Why not go after Big Tech for being publishers? Why not open them to libel, defamation, slander suits like regular publishers face? By exercising what is, in effect, editorial control, are they not performing a key function of being a publisher? What if Torba is right, and the door IS closed to alternative platforms because Section 230 isn't there?

Secondly, DJT BLEW IT when he didn't go after Big Tech in 2018! He blew it! How so? Remember when Jack Dorsey and his fellow Big Tech CEOs testified in front of Congress in late 2018? Remember that this was AFTER Alex Jones and Laura Loomer had already been banned? Didn't that constitute sufficient proof that they were lying to Congress? If Big Tech had been punished then, wouldn't they have thought twice before engaging in the BLATANT, in your face censorship they're engaging in now? It's because they weren't punished that they're arrogant and bold now.

Granted, getting the Big Tech CEOs for lying to Congress wouldn't have punished censorship, per se; it would've been akin to how the Feds nailed Al Capone. Remember, they didn't get Capone on murder, robbery, extortion, etc., crimes he was actually guilty of; no, they got him on tax evasion. Nailing the Big Tech CEOs for lying to Congress wouldn've been analogous to that; though it wouldn't have punished them for their REAL crime, they'd have been punished nonetheless. Why not go for the slam dunk?

Blogger Silly but True October 28, 2020 2:28 PM  

230 isn’t exactly the main problem. Spinelessness is.

There are already federal election laws which regulate and criminalize the electioneering by media.

What is needed is DOJ arresting Twitter leadership for engaging in a conspiracy against the US to engage in illegal and unreported donation of in-kind services by media organizations to the Biden Campaign.

Enforcement of 230 in addition to use of federal election law and US criminal statutes would be nice lagniappe.

Blogger VD October 28, 2020 2:30 PM  

Vox, WHY do you think Torba is wrong?

Because he's primarily trying to defend his own interests.

Why not go after Big Tech for being publishers?

Section 230.

Why not open them to libel, defamation, slander suits like regular publishers face?

Repealing 230 will do that.

What if Torba is right, and the door IS closed to alternative platforms because Section 230 isn't there?

What part of "he is wrong" was hard to understand? Section 230 protects Big Tech, which is why Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and Pichai are all pleading to Congress to leave it alone.

Blogger bw October 28, 2020 2:32 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz6_PM9y_W8

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 28, 2020 2:35 PM  

The game these people play is how they end up with a Cromwell or Stalin.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville October 28, 2020 2:44 PM  

Nothing against Gab or Torba, but if 230 is repealed Twatter will either die or clean up it's act. A cleaned up Twatter makes Gab irrelevant.

Blogger machinephilosophy.com October 28, 2020 2:49 PM  

Although I continue the fight, I think the conversation is essentially over.

We're watching Russian Roulette. At some point, a corporation or group or individual will piss off the wrong person or group, and some very calculated unprecedented record-setting event is going to occur.

Blogger boogeyman October 28, 2020 2:50 PM  

Social media: "We absolutely love free speech!"

Also social media: "You've had too much to think citizen. You are banished to the outer dark."

Blogger kennymac October 28, 2020 2:56 PM  

@20 If only the God Emperor would listen to you, why everything would be right as rain! I just love it when random internet morons think they know better than TGE.

Blogger boogeyman October 28, 2020 3:03 PM  

How about making their 230 protection contingent on not banning anyone for any post outside of the obviously illegal (CP, communicating with terrorists, etc.) with hefty mandatory fines written into the law for each violation? Pay half to the government and half to the banned party.

I'm sure there is a problem with this that I'm not seeing. I don't pretend to be a smart boy, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Blogger Dire Badger October 28, 2020 3:11 PM  

Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia October 28, 2020 3:21 PM  

Daniel wrote:Free speech, by definition, can't also be safe.

Right.

I am beginning to loathe the word "safety."

It has become an all-purpose euphemism for "we're going to do things we like, and not do things we don't like, and pretend that we're deciding what to do and what not to do so you won't get 'hurt.'"

Blogger Jeroth October 28, 2020 3:26 PM  

Meanwhile, the New York Post is still locked out of its Twitter account.

Blogger Br1cht October 28, 2020 3:38 PM  

VD wrote:Torba & some of the others on Gab

I could not care less what Torba or anyone on Gab thinks. He's wrong.


Opinion from a rather mediocre mind: Torba showed himself to be on par with twoface van Sciver and slapped the SDL´s hand when our ever victorious SDL came in friendship. That made me very wary of him and his site.

He is no glow-in-da-dark-Bongino(Parler even censored The Donald regarding The Laptop) but it seems to me that he must either be non-optimized in the cognitive department or... it´s always the "or" that bugs me.


Blogger pyrrhus October 28, 2020 3:44 PM  

@25 "A cleaned up Twatter makes Gab irrelevant."

That won't happen, censorship is part of the deal that gets Dorsey all his funding from the deep State...

Blogger crescent wrench October 28, 2020 3:44 PM  

The GOP have already made it very clear this is merely a source of political theater to them, a "wedge issue" for them to rattle sabers at but never really solve.

They're perfectly happy to step back and allow technocrats to impose cyberpunk dystopia upon us for campaign contributions.

Given this, i'm happy to step aside and allow the woke mob to do whatever the heck they like, including sending mobs to the houses of GOP members and giving the trees in front of said houses "strange fruit"

Blogger Balazs Varga October 28, 2020 4:10 PM  

"Censorship is free speech." Hah a good fourth line.

230 needs to go. Either they are publishers, or they don't get to moderate and ban people.

Blogger Daniel October 28, 2020 4:12 PM  

Yeah, 230 favors Gab. That's why Torba is against it, not because it makes sense.

Blogger MarkyMark October 28, 2020 4:13 PM  

Stefan Molyneux has a new video out about this, i.e. social media censorship. I like the analogy he uses; it's on point. Since that's the topic, I'll post the link to it: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WGOZ3vBlo7Ea/

Circling back to Andrew Torba and Gab, the sniping at him is why we NEVER win! One reason the lefties alway win is that they close ranks; they stick together. For example, the Obamas and Clintons don't like each other, or so they say. Do you ever hear either of them sniping at the other in public? Hell no! It's only those not on the left that snipe at each other. If we stopped that, we'd win more; we wouldn't be on the verge of leftist conquest if we'd been unified.

Vox, haven't you said to get off the Big Tech platforms? Haven't you said that folks on our side (i.e. to the right of Chairman Mao) would have to create alternative platforms? Ergo, I don't get the criticism of Torba, since he's DOING just that.

Blogger NewTunesForOldLogos October 28, 2020 4:19 PM  

The best way to repeal a law is to enforce it vigorously.

Blogger kerdasi amaq October 28, 2020 4:59 PM  

I'd say it's really a personnel problem with the top tech companies. They don't know what it means to be a civilised human being, anymore, and are incapable of engaging in a rational, objective debate with anyone.

So, all they can do is resort to bullying to triumph.

Blogger Steve Samson October 28, 2020 5:16 PM  

I am beginning to loathe the word "safety.

Especially as in" stay safe" which I pegged as a psyop as soon as people started mouthing it, and now just irritates me to the point of anger.

Blogger Jack Amok October 28, 2020 5:31 PM  

I think something like 230 is important, but clearly what we have now is failing. If TGE asked me to write a replacement for 230, I'd say that to have the protections of 230, a company has to file an affidavit claiming Common Carrier status and stating the geography they serve, but that obligates them to provide service to everyone in that geographic area with civil and criminal penalties for denying service to anyone. Choose up front who can sue you: people you let your platform liable, or people you censor.

Blogger Pathfinderlight October 28, 2020 6:18 PM  

Facebook and twitter enriched themselves by lying to their audience.

Any normal business that does that can be sued.

I'm pretty sure platform/publisher distinction doesn't cover theft by deception. FB sells ads that are worse than useless by deliberately targeting ads to bots to artificially increase the like count. They entice businesses to use their platform and buy ads. They then use that ad money to swarm the accounts of the ad buyers, costing them time dealing with the bots. Less time spent with real customers means less money and less service. Facebook's solution? Buy more ads to perpetuate the vicious cycle.

It's just a matter of time to get Twitter's corruption documented just like Facebook's.

Blogger VD October 28, 2020 6:23 PM  

Circling back to Andrew Torba and Gab, the sniping at him is why we NEVER win!

There is no we. There is no us. Andrew Torba made it very, very clear that he was never on my side, so fuck him and fuck you too.

I want nothing to do with him or anyone who supports him.

Is that clear?

I don't get the criticism of Torba, since he's DOING just that.

Andrew Torba personally treated my wife far worse than any of the Big Tech platforms would ever permit, then lied about what he did, lied about what he said, lied about me, and lied about what I said. He would have kept doing it too, except I called him out and warned him that I would post all of his many emails to me that conclusively proved his public statements to be false.

So you can forget your "we're all in this together" BS. He's a dishonest little weasel. The most I will do for him is to ignore him, ignore Gab, and keep my mouth shut. You would do well to be satisfied with that.

Blogger Crunchy Cachalot October 28, 2020 6:51 PM  

Section 230 could collapse how we communicate on the Internet, leaving only a small number of giant and well-funded technology companies.

Is this greasy little prick claiming that Twitter, of all companies, is some tiny nickel and dime store that the big corporate meanies of the internet are going to bully without the protections of government?


Instead, what I hear from people is that they want to be able to trust the services they are using.

Trust them to prevent these people from every having to see any words they don't like.


People who don't feel safe anonymously perusing electronic text in an undisclosed location should probably be eliminated from the gene pool.

If only.


Circling back to Andrew Torba and Gab, the sniping at him is why we NEVER win!

No, we "never win" because we too often make the mistake of turning our back to our so-called "allies" only to find several knives sticking out of it.

Blogger My Comment October 28, 2020 7:04 PM  

This is all political theater. Like Torba, the Republicans have a strong vested interest in not revoking 230:

1. Donations

2. Big tech censors the type of information that exposes their worthlessness and the type of candidate who we need to primary them.

As in the general spinelessness and nothing will be done unless Trump finds a way to do it on his own

Blogger travvyboy October 28, 2020 7:10 PM  

"I do not think anyone in this room or the American people want less free speech or more abuse and harassment online" aka "I want to have my cake and eat it too"

Blogger RoRo71 October 28, 2020 7:38 PM  

Maybe when he chimes in on these things, he’s bound to shareholders and such, meaning we won’t hear what he really thinks. But the performance on Rogan by Jack and his PolkaDotIndianWomyn™ character was the most stomach churning pile of hot wet garbage I’ve seen in a long time.

Blogger Valtandor Nought October 28, 2020 7:57 PM  

IAMSpartacus0000 wrote:They should keep 230 but add to it the requirement to comply with the 1st amendment and "public square" requirements. People then have the right to sue for violating first amendment protections.

NewTunesForOldLogos wrote:The best way to repeal a law is to enforce it vigorously.

Jack Amok wrote:I think something like 230 is important, but clearly what we have now is failing.

I don't know the exact text of Section 230, but I understand that its main point is to provide "safe harbour" provisions for web hosts so that they can't be held liable for things their clients write and publish using their infrastructure.

So what would "rigorous enforcement of section 230" entail?

I'm a web hosting provider. I wake up one day to find the law saying this:

1. You must allow your clients to publish, using your servers, any lawful content they wish.
2. You must forbid your clients from publishing, using your servers, any unlawful content.
3. Any decision you make as to whether any given piece of content is lawful or unlawful is reviewable by the courts, at the instance of the client who is aggrieved by your censorship, or law enforcement agencies who object to your decision not to censor, as the case may be.
4. You must pay the costs of your own defence, even if you prevail.

In such a legal environment, I don't think I would find web hosting worth doing. I would instead be strongly arguing that people who want a voice on the public internet should just publish from their own machines.

Then again, perhaps that's a feature, not a bug.

Blogger Beloved October 28, 2020 8:02 PM  

If mail in ballots are pointless, then I'm glad I live in a red state. There's no way I can vote without mail in ballots.

Blogger Canada78Bear October 28, 2020 8:05 PM  

IMHO if the big social media companies say it is vital law then repeal is insufficient and opposite applied.
Fully liable like a newspaper, no arbitration if they remove anything without court order (like phone company).

Blogger Kirk Parker October 28, 2020 8:31 PM  

"Declare"?

Not at all. What is, or should be required, is to *act like* a platform / carrier unless you want to be treated as a publisher.

Or, as Vox says, flush it and try again.

Blogger Jack Amok October 28, 2020 8:52 PM  

So what would "rigorous enforcement of section 230" entail?

Your example isn't applicable to what's going on with Twitter. They're not attempting to censor illegal content, they're censoring content they don't approve of. There's zero credible claim they can make that the people they've blocked or shadow-banned in response to the Hunter Biden story were engaged in anything unlawful.

Rigorous enforcement of Section 230 would mean Twitter cannot block lawful content without becoming strictly liable for whatever content they allow through.

As far as your claim that your actions would be litigated ex post facto, well, pretty much everything is these days, but Section 230 has specific language about "good faith." If you incorrectly blocked someone's website because you thought they were engaged in unlawful activity, but you can show you made a good faith attempt to make the right decision, you don't lose your safe harbor. Again, not applicable here as Twitter can make no good faith claim for their actions.

Blogger Jack Amok October 28, 2020 8:54 PM  

Fully liable like a newspaper, no arbitration if they remove anything without court order (like phone company).

Yep, that's what it ought to be. Make your choice, newspaper or phone company, and stick with it.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( you can't untuck the Cuck, but the real question is "Why were you trying to touch a Cuck like that?" ) October 28, 2020 8:55 PM  

12. VD October 28, 2020 1:55 PM
I could not care less what Torba or anyone on Gab thinks. He's wrong.



more importantly, he's kind of stupid.



33. Br1cht October 28, 2020 3:38 PM
or... it´s always the "or" that bugs me.


many of the neuro-deviances listed in the DSM result in astoundingly stupid behavior regardless of the native intelligence score. Cluster B types are exceptional in all the wrong ways.

ie - the difference between the Idiot and the Fool. the Idiot has no choice in his stupidity, he is capable of nothing else. the Fool knowingly and willfully chooses stupidity, usually to garner Narcissistic Supply.


38. MarkyMark October 28, 2020 4:13 PM
Ergo, I don't get the criticism of Torba, since he's DOING just that.



Torba attacked Vox first.

as is usually the case with the Van Scivers and McRapeys of the world.

Blogger nswhorse October 28, 2020 9:07 PM  

That is some A-grade pure wizardry.

Blogger MarkyMark October 28, 2020 10:00 PM  

Vox,

I wasn't aware of thie history between you and Torba. I don't know WHY he attacked you when it was unprovoked. I'm sorry about what happened to your wife. I don't know what else to say, other than I'm sorry that it happened.

Like you, I was kicked off Twitter. I don't know why, because they didn't tell me. I went on Parler and Gab, and I'm thankful that those alternatives exist. I'll just leave it at that.

Blogger bobby October 28, 2020 10:30 PM  

"Weakening Section 230 protections will remove critical speech from the Internet."

He's right.

Problem is, he wants to remove half of free speech at his own discretion. So the threat is, stop that or we'll remove it all instead.

It's a very valid response to his usurpation of society. It's gamesmanship. But it works.

Blogger VD October 28, 2020 10:37 PM  

I don't know what else to say, other than I'm sorry that it happened.

Not your fault. But that is why you shouldn't go around criticizing others and telling them what they should do when you have absolutely no idea why they hold the positions they do.

Blogger Jack Amok October 28, 2020 10:39 PM  

"Declare"?

Not at all. What is, or should be required, is to *act like* a platform / carrier unless you want to be treated as a publisher.

Or, as Vox says, flush it and try again.


Of course they should have to declare what they are. That way you know what to sue them for if they don't follow through. Right now, to sue them for liable you first have to prove they've lost their 230 safe harbor. Or, to sue them for not baking your cake, you have to prove they are a common carrier.

Much better to require them to declare what they are and thus what they can be sued for.

"Act like" is exactly what the current 230 implements, and it clearly doesn't work. Declare is perfect - if they declare as a common carrier and deny anyone service without a court order, they're liable. Very simple.

Blogger bobby October 28, 2020 10:39 PM  

One possibility:

"(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;"

- Remove the "or otherwise objectionable" exemption. Let Twitter defend its bannings based on the remaining exemptions.

Blogger Ahnaf Ibn Qais October 28, 2020 10:52 PM  

"Free Speech" is a Big Lie.

In theory, it is presented as this lofty ideal that all ought to aspire to; but in practice it's just a means toward normalizing Defamation, Obscenities and Sedition.

Twitter should not be given such a luxury, neither should anyone else for that matter. The time has come to break em up, as well as other Tech firms.

Blogger MarkyMark October 28, 2020 10:55 PM  

Point taken. I hadn't seen you talk about AT at all, so I was unaware that anything had happened. It's not like with Scalzi, who you HAVE talked about-both on here and in your books. BTW, your books are good; I enjoyed all of them... :)

Blogger OvergrownHobbit October 29, 2020 12:20 AM  

So, I don't believe a single word that is coming out of Dorsey's mouth.

We'll call that the JD rule. JD is a tool.

JD rules (and tools) are why so many sensible people refused to listen to you about Pres. Bush, Jr. and the War on Terror.

JD is a Xanatos gambit.


The fact that he is defending Section 230 is sufficient reason to eliminate it.

Ka-ching!

The fact that Code Pink is opposed to the war in Iraq...

When you can get bipartisan support to bulldoze a roadblock in the path of globalist domination, why not use the Tool?

The solution to desperate girls seduced by bounders is not abortion on demand. The solution to police misconduct is not replacing the cops with SJW pimps.

The solution to failing to enforce section 230 is not to enable the Feds to join Twitter in enforcing SJW compliance.

Blogger OvergrownHobbit October 29, 2020 12:28 AM  

The most I will do for him is to ignore him, ignore Gab, and keep my mouth shut. You would do well to be satisfied with that.

No. I won't be satisfied until Mr. Torba repents,and you forgive him.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( you can't untuck the Cuck, but the real question is "Why were you trying to touch a Cuck like that?" ) October 29, 2020 12:49 AM  

can you forgive skulls?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 29, 2020 12:53 AM  

kerdasi amaq wrote:I'd say it's really a personnel problem with the top tech companies. They don't know what it means to be a civilised human being, anymore, and are incapable of engaging in a rational, objective debate with anyone.

So, all they can do is resort to bullying to triumph.

This is how human society works. It is how it has always worked.

There has never been a golden age when dialectical arguments actually made a difference.

Never.

Logical argumentation has been a has been a hobby of the rich and effete in a few societies that falsely prided themselves on their rationality and intelligence.
like Classical Greece, that dissolved in it's own bllod to the point that he Romans basically took everything because there was nobody left to stand up to them.
Or Victorian Britain, one of the most savage, brutal and greedy empires the world has ever seen.
Or post-war America, Ruling the world by virtue of the fact that literally every other county on the planet had bee bombed back to the stone age.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 29, 2020 12:55 AM  

kerdasi amaq wrote:I'd say it's really a personnel problem with the top tech companies. They don't know what it means to be a civilised human being, anymore, and are incapable of engaging in a rational, objective debate with anyone.

So, all they can do is resort to bullying to triumph.

This is how human society works. It is how it has always worked.

There has never been a golden age when dialectical arguments actually made a difference.

Never.

Logical argumentation has been a has been a hobby of the rich and effete in a few societies that falsely prided themselves on their rationality and intelligence.
Like Classical Greece, that dissolved in its own blood to the point that the Romans basically took everything because there was nobody left to stand up to them.
Or Victorian Britain, one of the most savage, brutal and greedy empires the world has ever seen.
Or post-war America, ruling the world by virtue of the fact that every other county on the planet had been bombed back to the stone age.

Blogger SacrificialLamb October 29, 2020 1:32 AM  

@38. You're totally delusional if you think that Gab is an "alternative platform". Both Torba and Gab are controlled by Mossad, which makes Gab a controlled opposition site. That makes it at least a peripheral part of "Big Tech". Don't ask me how I know this; it doesn't matter. Gab can sometimes be a vaguely useful tool, but that site should never be trusted.

Blogger Zastavnik Džemo October 29, 2020 4:10 AM  

"safe" is a codeword for "fuck you right winger"

Blogger Chip Hazard October 29, 2020 6:14 AM  

"F%#*( these people..."

Imagine being this cucked, on this board, arguing this particular issue while censoring yourself.

F minus.

Take the gloves off, people.

Blogger SemiSpook37 October 29, 2020 8:20 AM  

@65

Hey Bilbo, your gamma is showing.

I had forgotten about all the underhanded crap that Torba had been pulling at that time. The girl who was an ambassador for newbies just up and quitting and moving over to Minds should have been a sign.

Then the Alt-Retards came in and made things worse...

Blogger My Comment October 29, 2020 8:34 AM  

Always remember that there is no incentive for Jack or any of the others to care about this because there will be no consequences. This is merely a play. They are actors on a stage and know their lines

Blogger DonReynolds October 29, 2020 9:58 AM  

The ONLY Free Speech and Safety that Twitter (and Facebook, and Google) believe in.... is their own, and that means they insist on complete and unbridled discretion in suspending the FREE SPEECH of anyone who speaks contrary to their wishes, and thus makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, or makes their friends uncomfortable or unsafe. The 230 PROTECTIONS do not protect anyone but themselves and their unbridled latitude to craft any and every public discussion, effectively gutting those views their friends do not like and promoting those of their friends. Every day is a birthday party at Twitter (and Facebook, and Google) and only my friends are invited, or allowed, or seated, or get a party hat, or get cake and ice cream.

They are not broadcasters serving the public interest, unless you want to pretend ABC, NBC, CBS, who are licensed to do exactly that by the Federal government, are somehow different from CNN, or MSNBC. WE used to speak of "equal time" as being the two-handed approach, but I have not heard that phrase in decades. About the last pretense of Free Speech in this country.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 29, 2020 10:14 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:Much better to require them to declare what they are and thus what they can be sued for.
That sounds like a great replacement for 230. Repeal and replace!

Blogger phil g October 29, 2020 10:22 AM  

Exactly

Blogger Akulkis October 30, 2020 12:25 AM  

>> "Act like" is exactly what the current 230 implements, and it clearly doesn't work.

The ONLY reason it doesn't work is because those with the power to prosecute them (such as the FCC) have not done so. Changing the law won't help when the FCC is a leftist cabal.

Blogger Akulkis October 30, 2020 12:30 AM  

>> Both Torba and Gab are controlled by Mossad, which makes Gab a controlled opposition site. That makes it at least a peripheral part of "Big Tech". Don't ask me how I know this; it doesn't matter. Gab can sometimes be a vaguely useful tool, but that site should never be trusted.

The fact that they attacked our host's wife is all the evidence necessary.

Blogger Akulkis October 30, 2020 12:34 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Jack Amok wrote:Much better to require them to declare what they are and thus what they can be sued for.

That sounds like a great replacement for 230. Repeal and replace!


Wrong. AMEND.

Keep 230, and every service *MUST* declare at the outset whether they want to be a 230 platform, or to be a publisher whom is liable for any and all content posted on the site.

Blogger Jpc October 30, 2020 7:02 PM  

And twitter has turned about!
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitter-capitulates-reinstates-nypost-account-after-16-day-suspension

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts