RIP Twitter

#327
#327
Grand Vol said:
Yep, didn't think he had a good answer since his little stance will get blown the eff up.
Click to expand...

n_huffhines said:
It seems like maybe the best avenue is anti-trust law, which I generally do not like, but it is a better method than anything that's been proposed. Apple store, Google Play, and Amazon web services all colluding to kill Parler seems like something that could fall under antitrust. But IDK for sure.
Click to expand...
 
#329
#329
BowlBrother85 said:
With Donald Trump out of office, and removed from Twitter for good, he has lost his omnipresence. You can already tell a difference. Outside of his upcoming Senate Trial, Trump's relevancy is fading fast. I don't think it's going to be easy for Trump to maintain his popularity from Florida. Unless Trump wants to do regular interviews on Fox News (whom he has been feuding with recently), he will have to find a new medium quickly.
Click to expand...
You can tell the difference because of people's reactions changing. Trump is still as dumb/abrasive/whatever as he was before. It was only because he got 24 coverage that people cared. Nothing has changed now that he doesnt get 24 hour coverage. The whole continuum of people caring about Trump was only because they buried themselves in Trump.

I didnt watch the news, and outside of VN avoid politics. I had very very little Trump in my life. Sorry you are just now discovering the fact that the world doesnt revolve around Trump.
 
#333
#333
Orangeburst said:
Well for one,,it is fashionable thanks to you demagougues. Hey, Chik Fila sux...lets lock it down, the calls to shut down Fox, the protests on campus politcal debate, censorship of Trump supporters and we could go on and on.

Just playing the game you created.
Click to expand...

FYI, I don't even have a twitter account and I don't post anything on my Facebook account. I use it solely to access the games like Madden.

So I didn't create the game.

But I don't see why Republicans suddenly want to regulate a business activity when that is typically antithetical to their core values.
 
#337
#337
n_huffhines said:
Maybe somebody at Twitter just made a mistake?

Have you seen the images? I don't want to see them, so I haven't explored this, but just because someone thinks something is pornographic doesn't make it pornographic. If it's graphic, I get it. If it's just him with his shirt off in this terrible situation that isn't captured by the image, I can see how twitter would pass on censoring this. Which is it?

And beyond all that, I would bet this is an outlier. Twitter has a consistent history of not having child pornography on their platform. You're looking at the .0000001% that's out there and demonizing Twitter for it.
Click to expand...
Actually the definition of child porn is pretty broad in that if the scene is set up to simply imply sexualized material, it's child porn. That Netflix show is actually considered child porn since it shows minors engaging in sexualized and lewd dancing. I don't know what the videos are but the description is concrete child porn and twitter should get busted for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#338
#338
utvols88 said:
Actually the definition of child porn is pretty broad in that if the scene is set up to simply imply sexualized material, it's child porn. That Netflix show is actually considered child porn since it shows minors engaging in sexualized and lewd dancing. I don't know what the videos are but the description is concrete child porn and twitter should get busted for it.
Click to expand...

You act like this isn't subjective. What was the sexualized/lewd behavior?

If a 16 year old male licks between his two fingers for the camera and his buddy throws it on twitter, is that child porn? How about a shocker? I don't think that it is child porn but it certainly fits your definition.
 
#339
#339
n_huffhines said:
You act like this isn't subjective. What was the sexualized/lewd behavior?

If a 16 year old male licks between his two fingers for the camera and his buddy throws it on twitter, is that child porn? How about a shocker? I don't think that it is child porn but it certainly fits your definition.
Click to expand...

18 U.S.C. § 2251 makes it illegal to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Any individual who attempts or conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution under federal law.

In definitions it states simulated as well

(B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
 
Last edited:
#340
#340
utvols88 said:
18 U.S.C. § 2251 makes it illegal to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Any individual who attempts or conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution under federal law.

In definitions it states simulated as well

(B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised at all that you doubled down on the broad legal definition and didn't answer my question.

None of this determines whether or not twitter should have taken action.
 
#341
#341
n_huffhines said:
I'm not surprised at all that you doubled down on the broad legal definition and didn't answer my question.

None of this determines whether or not twitter should have taken action.
Click to expand...
Child sexual exploitation policy

Their own policy for one. But also profiting, via ad views, from the child porn posts can implicate them, the company, as a distributor since they were notified and didn't take it down, thus still profiting off of it.

The article advises that the subject was engaging in sexual acts.

I do love your attempt at being condenscending while simultaneously pressing on why Twitter should even REMOVE it lol. Yeesh.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy*
#342
#342
utvols88 said:
Child sexual exploitation policy

Their own policy for one. But also profiting, via ad views, from the child porn posts can implicate them, the company, as a distributor since they were notified and didn't take it down, thus still profiting off of it.

The article advises that the subject was engaging in sexual acts.

I do love your attempt at being condenscending while simultaneously pressing on why Twitter should even REMOVE it lol. Yeesh.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen the content. We just have a janky article.
 
#345
#345
n_huffhines said:
You can't even describe what's in the content, right? Why do you think you can assume twitter is at fault?
Click to expand...
According to the lawsuit, it was two 13-year-old minors engaged in 'sexual acts.' The one filing the lawsuit was tricked into trafficking by a person he thought to be a female minor. He then was blackmailed into recording videos of himself with another minor, which made their way to Twitter. Twitter was asked multiple times to remove the videos and refused until DHS got involved. What more do you need to know? The specific sex acts? The only question is if it's true, not what base they got to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#346
#346
n_huffhines said:
You can't even describe what's in the content, right? Why do you think you can assume twitter is at fault?
Click to expand...
Did you even read the article? It appears as if you are more interested in showing twitters innocence through ignorance of the subject and allegations. If the content is described a smidge accurate, Twitter messed up multiple times. The courts will review it legitimacy. You can't seriously think leaving up child porn intentionally is something twitter should be able to decide without the threat of civil action at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#347
#347
utvols88 said:
Did you even read the article? It appears as if you are more interested in showing twitters innocence through ignorance of the subject and allegations. If the content is described a smidge accurate, Twitter messed up multiple times. The courts will review it legitimacy. You can't seriously think leaving up child porn intentionally is something twitter should be able to decide without the threat of civil action at least.
Click to expand...

I read the article. I don't know what the content is. You don't either. The article is saying what the suit alleges not what the author has seen. You're taking the word of a plaintiff and lawyers who have plenty to gain.
 
Last edited:
#348
#348
Kristy* said:
According to the lawsuit, it was two 13-year-old minors engaged in 'sexual acts.' The one filing the lawsuit was tricked into trafficking by a person he thought to be a female minor. He then was blackmailed into recording videos of himself with another minor, which made their way to Twitter. Twitter was asked multiple times to remove the videos and refused until DHS got involved. What more do you need to know? The specific sex acts? The only question is if it's true, not what base they got to.
Click to expand...

That's not enough information. As 88 himself said, there is an extremely broad net we're casting with "child porn"
 
#349
#349
n_huffhines said:
That's not enough information. As 88 himself said, there is an extremely broad net we're casting with "child porn"
Click to expand...
That works against Twitter, not for. So is it your position that content that can be debatable as child porn should be allowed by twitter per their own rules and the laws surrounding it? What a weird take if it is your position.

And that description it's enough for me. The court will review the evidence and I'm sure the actual suit describes it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy*
#350
#350
utvols88 said:
That works against Twitter, not for. So is it your position that content that can be debatable as child porn should be allowed by twitter per their own rules and the laws surrounding it? What a weird take if it is your position.

And that description it's enough for me. The court will review the evidence and I'm sure the actual suit describes it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're going to ever understand my position but it's very simple...we don't know what the actual circumstances are. You think you have a smoking gun because you merely have allegations and a broad legal definition. I'm glad that our judicial system requires more than that and I would hope society does too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top