BF2S Forums Pandemic thread

we're talking about twitter's ownership and its ramifications on 'public discourse'. it is precisely about when a business entity and platform requires wider responsibilities, i.e. acting in the capacity of a media outlet or news source. this has been the basic grounds of debate for all of these discussions around facebook/twitter/etc in recent years. do keep up ... why would anyone care who owned twitter if it didn't have these very public implications?

confusing freedom of speech with the freedom to incite violence and get people killed. oh boy are we going into this one again.

the EU/UK framework on this isn't the same as the US's enthroning of free speech above all else. the UK has strict libel laws ffs. some context and detail matters in this discussion. i'm fine with 'freedom of speech' but not when it crosses over into politically (or racially) aggravated assaults and murder. you'll notice that the previous owners of twitter agreed with me ... as they banned trump and intended for him to stay banned. evidently your favourite human, elon, has an enlightened and superior view of free speech that involves letting riot-inciting blowhards do their thing. ok. you can stop whining about BLM protestors setting fire to mailboxes though.

where did i say the government should takeover twitter? i never said any such thing.

trump broke their private terms of agreement and he got banned for it.

changing the rules to unban someone ... okay, classy. 'why do you hate rich people enjoying their money to do what they want?'

uziq wrote:

where did i say the government should takeover twitter? i never said any such thing.

uziq wrote:

the majority of the world's population don't use a version of the internet based on corporations and the free-market

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The US has restrictions and exceptions for this. Hate speech, defamation, (famously) "fighting words," incitement and disturbance of public safety, and contempt of court are some of these things.

Terrific, when someone is prosecuted for these things the courts can restrict their rights.

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The US has restrictions and exceptions for this. Hate speech, defamation, (famously) "fighting words," incitement and disturbance of public safety, and contempt of court are some of these things.

Terrific, when someone is prosecuted for these things the courts can restrict their rights.

You may be laboring under a misconception. Freedom of speech here is not "everything goes." By necessity the laws governing this stuff in the United States are more complicated than what could fit in an amendment of that size. I'll forgo the sarcastic lament for commercial advertising and death threats not receiving the same protection as "petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances" or "peaceable assembly."

It's a thing, like CRT, that means to them whatever they want it to mean. Freedom of speech, also only for them and people who agree with them.

I wonder if A Day Without a Mexican is on any anti-CRT state ban lists? Certainly if it came out more recently I'd probably be hearing about it from Fox people.

Telegram, the spurned lover.

you have AIDS. ask dilbert. for some reason he's read 2 books on this subject. he's an expert.

you drink alcohol.

it damages the brain (and body).

read a book.

"Gun springs of WW2"

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, you have smoked too many drugs and now have the lungs to show for it.

I knew it! Why did I have to be born with a substance abuse disorder (SAD)?

you live at home with your parents and no woman wants you. it doesn't sound as though you even have friends. i'm happy with my lifestyle.