Facebook, Google, et al

[randylahey]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalists-hnk-intl/index.html

https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/elon-musk-fires-twitter-employees-for-criticizing-him/

https://nypost.com/2022/12/10/elon-musk-threatens-twitter-employees-with-legal-action-if-they-leak-to-press/amp/

https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-censors-employees-critics-2022-3?amp

#bastionoffreespeech

Pretty much all this is him not liking insubordination from his employees. What boss tolerates that?

And we already discussed in length when he banned 3 journalists for a week. He was making a point. They were dumb enough to play right into it when they started trumping the importance of free speech all over the internet

I’m waiting for the explanation you owe me, about how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

Pretty funny though how your free speech absolutist hero has such thin skin about people’s words.

Do you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about now

[PhDhawk]

Lol.

Which part of congress is twitter?

[jfish26]

Cafeteria libertarianism is childish and exhausting.

[jfish26]

Pretty much all this is him not liking insubordination from his employees. What boss tolerates that?

And we already discussed in length when he banned 3 journalists for a week. He was making a point. They were dumb enough to play right into it when they started trumping the importance of free speech all over the internet

I’m waiting for the explanation you owe me, about how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

Pretty funny though how your free speech absolutist hero has such thin skin about people’s words.

Do you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about now

I'm waiting for you to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

[randylahey]

I’m waiting for the explanation you owe me, about how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

Pretty funny though how your free speech absolutist hero has such thin skin about people’s words.

Do you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about now

I'm waiting for you to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

Think for yourself. People were getting censored for speaking out against government regulations.

That is a perfect example of the entire point of the 1st amendment.

[randylahey]

You have to be a real dumbass to not see how the 1st amendment is applicable. But then again you did spend a day trying to argue that mandates never happened

[KUTradition]

#notverysmart

[jfish26]

You have to be a real dumbass to not see how the 1st amendment is applicable. But then again you did spend a day trying to argue that mandates never happened

When my daughter doesn't know the answer to a question, but doesn't want to admit it, she says things like "it's a secret" or "I'm not telling!"

She's four.

You have yet to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

[jhawks99]

And DC said this thread isn't entertaining.

[pdub]

While not bound by the constitution, obviously, I do think larger social platforms have a responsibility to be free speech/platform agnostic because of how important they have become to the fabric of communication.

This of course is a full both-sidesism as Musk is coming in, saying one thing ( hey, let's stop banning users ), and then doing the opposite ( banning users ).

randy, per usual, is getting all twisted in his own bullshit, because if the 1st Amendment is applicable here, that means the government would have to get involved and make mandates over what a social media platform can and cannot do when it comes to restricting users and what they post. But on the other hand, he wants the government out of social media.

What's a randy to do?

[jfish26]

While not bound by the constitution, obviously, I do think larger social platforms have a responsibility to be free speech/platform agnostic because of how important they have become to the fabric of communication.

This of course is a full both-sidesism as Musk is coming in, saying one thing ( hey, let's stop banning users ), and then doing the opposite ( banning users ).

randy, per usual, is getting all twisted in his own bullshit, because if the 1st Amendment is applicable here, that means the government would have to get involved and make mandates over what a social media platform can and cannot do when it comes to restricting users and what they post. But on the other hand, he wants the government out of social media.

What's a randy to do?

Correct - there is a fundamental (and unresolvable) incompatibility with randy's own (well, not his own) positions.

[pdub]

He's ( randy ) is right in that Twitter went overboard in one direction in terms of censorship before Elon took over.
Now they're just going overboard in another direction.

[jfish26]

He's ( randy ) is right in that Twitter went overboard in one direction in terms of censorship before Elon took over.
Now they're just going overboard in another direction.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't even be on the Basketball bored debating the relative worth of Dajuan Harris, if you aren't, like, aware of the existence of three point shots. Your position on basketball-related things is irrelevant to a conversation about basketball, where you do not understand the basic rules of the game.

[jfish26]

Do you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about now

I'm waiting for you to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

Think for yourself. People were getting censored for speaking out against government regulations.

That is a perfect example of the entire point of the 1st amendment.

I'm still waiting.

Describe the application of the First Amendment to Twitter.

[pdub]

If you're arguing that he should be banned from the boreds for being a moran, I don't 100% ( probably even 51% ) agree.
If you're just arguing he's a moran, then I agree.

[jfish26]

If you're arguing that he should be banned from the boreds for being a moran, I don't 100% ( probably even 51% ) agree.
If you're just arguing he's a moran, then I agree.

No, I'm not at all saying he should be banned. I'm just saying that if you don't understand that some basketball shots are worth one point, some are worth two points and some are worth three points, you'd make for a very shitty basketball analyst.

[randylahey]

If you're arguing that he should be banned from the boreds for being a moran, I don't 100% ( probably even 51% ) agree.
If you're just arguing he's a moran, then I agree.

Theres another good example of the first amendment. If people are arguing to ban or silence me for having different opinions

[randylahey]

Thats something you hear a lot of from the left. Trying to silence facts and opinions of others that don't align with theirs. So im not a bit surprised who that would be coming from

[pdub]

If you're arguing that he should be banned from the boreds for being a moran, I don't 100% ( probably even 51% ) agree.
If you're just arguing he's a moran, then I agree.

Theres another good example of the first amendment. If people are arguing to ban or silence me for having different opinions

One minor issue, I don't work for our Legislature.

[jhawks99]

Thats something you hear a lot of from the left. Trying to silence facts and opinions of others that don't align with theirs. So im not a bit surprised who that would be coming from

See puddin ron and Disney.