RIP Twitter

#6,427
#6,427
Grand Vol said:
You're missing my point...

I'm saying who gets to be the determining authority on the "hacked" material?

The government? X-Twitter? Blue Check holders?

My problem was you saying the hacked material could have swung an election and Twitter would/should remove it. I'm asking who gets to make that determination on whether or not it's hacked. Because I sure as hell don't trust the government to do it in a fair and impartial manner. Nor so I trust some raging liberal with a political axe to grind to allow some things while censoring others.

Not even going to get into whether or not it swings an election. Because that's entirely subjective.
Click to expand...
Some here are emphasizing "hacked material." I see no such mention in my reading of this decision.

US District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, ruled Tuesday that the White House likely violated the First Amendment by flagging content for Big Tech companies to scrub during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Doughty concluded that the plaintiffs, led by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, were likely to succeed in their lawsuit against the federal government and issued a preliminary injunction limiting dozens of Biden administration officials from attempting to coordinate with social media giants to remove content.
Click to expand...
nypost.com

Biden DOJ to appeal federal ruling on Big Tech collusion

The Justice Department will appeal a federal court ruling that blocked Biden administration officials from contacting social media companies because of collusion concerns, court documents show.&nbs…
nypost.com nypost.com

I don't see the word "hacked" in this whole article. It's about the gov't "coordinating" with big tech. That's certainly a charged word. We don't want the gov't coordinating with say Google, which happens to be our biggest source of information. If they can influence Google on what kind of content they show us then the gov't is literally controlling the release of information to the American people. If that doesn't frighten you then I'd love to know why (not)?

I don't think hacked material is a major part of this lawsuit. Nor are Twitter's policies not being followed
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#6,428
#6,428
NashVol11 said:
The post you quoted had nothing to do with the time of injury, and regardless that's luck, explain what is "interesting" about it instead of backtracking on your conspiracy nonsense while randomly calling me a pedophile
Click to expand...
I actually looked up the NY post article after seeing Huff’s comment and read it before quoting him and saying it was interesting, so there’s no backtrack. I don’t hide that I’m into conspiracy theories, but I don’t see one there and never said I did. Also, nothing random about me calling you a MAP after seeing what you think children should be exposed to.
 
#6,429
#6,429
BTW, I just learned that the computer repair shop owner is a blind man who can't possibly tell anybody for sure that Hunter Biden dropped the laptop off. That is the most hilarious coincidence. How did I not know this?
 
#6,431
#6,431
hog88 said:
He never paid for the services rendered so the laptop became property of the shop that worked on it.
Click to expand...
No different than Best Buy going through everyone’s hard drives that brings in their computers for repair. If that’s not illegal (they do it at the behest of law enforcement) then neither is this.
 
#6,432
#6,432
davethevol said:
No different than Best Buy going through everyone’s hard drives that brings in their computers for repair. If that’s not illegal (they do it at the behest of law enforcement) then neither is this.
Click to expand...

I have never heard that.
 
#6,433
#6,433
#6,435
#6,435
hog88 said:
He never paid for the services rendered so the laptop became property of the shop that worked on it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean it's not a hack, tho.

It's a matter of semantics, I guess, and what somebody believes counts as a hack. People think a hack is remotely accessing a computer. That's one version of it. Just because you can legally claim you own a computer doesn't mean personal, private information on the computer can be accessed and disseminated. Wipe the hard drive and re-sell it, fine. You're not in the clear to access their ****.

Hell, we have hack jobs where the person getting hacked literally gives the hacker every bit of authorization, including passwords and accounts, that they need to do the deed but it still counts as hacking.
 
#6,436
#6,436
davethevol said:
No different than Best Buy going through everyone’s hard drives that brings in their computers for repair. If that’s not illegal (they do it at the behest of law enforcement) then neither is this.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of legality. It's a question of what it is. Some hacks are legal.
 
#6,440
#6,440
davethevol said:
I actually looked up the NY post article after seeing Huff’s comment and read it before quoting him and saying it was interesting, so there’s no backtrack. I don’t hide that I’m into conspiracy theories, but I don’t see one there and never said I did. Also, nothing random about me calling you a MAP after seeing what you think children should be exposed to.
Click to expand...
Even assuming that your last sentence was not unfathomably stupid, that would have nothing to do with being attracted to minors lmao. Good talk
 
#6,441
#6,441
n_huffhines said:
Let's take a step back, look at this from a non-partisan perspective (if y'all can)...

Hacked materials produce information that cannot be verified yet, and can potentially swing an election.

Twitter has a policy against sharing hacked materials.

Would it be more controversial for Twitter to:

1) go against their policies and share the materials in this one case.
2) adhere to their policies.

Nobody on the right is ever fair to Twitter about this ****.
Click to expand...

Y’all? You’re a looney leftist.
 
#6,442
#6,442
n_huffhines said:
Let's take a step back, look at this from a non-partisan perspective (if y'all can)...

Hacked materials produce information that cannot be verified yet, and can potentially swing an election.

Twitter has a policy against sharing hacked materials.

Would it be more controversial for Twitter to:

1) go against their policies and share the materials in this one case.
2) adhere to their policies.

Nobody on the right is ever fair to Twitter about this ****.
Click to expand...
It depends on how twitter is viewed..as a private business, then they have every right to censor, but they also should be liable to lawsuits due to the content on the site...as it stands now they have both the protection against lawsuit and the right to censor....that is the issue...they shouldn't have both.
 
#6,443
#6,443
whodeycin85 said:
It depends on how twitter is viewed..as a private business, then they have every right to censor, but they also should be liable to lawsuits due to the content on the site...as it stands now they have both the protection against lawsuit and the right to censor....that is the issue...they shouldn't have both.
Click to expand...

**** that. I have a right to call the shots in my house and I'm also not liable for what you, a guest, say in my house.
 
Last edited:
#6,444
#6,444
n_huffhines said:
**** that. I have a right to call the shots in my house and I'm also not liable for what you, a guest, say in my house.
Click to expand...
your house is not a public forum... which is what 230 protects and what social media is.

If someone breaks in your house is killed but someone else in your house... you can be sued in civil court....a kid breaks in and drowns in your pool, youth can be sued in civil court...
 
#6,445
#6,445
whodeycin85 said:
your house is not a public forum... which is what 230 protects and what social media is.

If someone breaks in your house is killed but someone else in your house... you can be sued in civil court....a kid breaks in and drowns in your pool, youth can be sued in civil court...
Click to expand...

And you think that's right? You are not my guy, bro. That's ****ed up. Cool that the laws allow it tho, I guess.

VN censors us. You gonna sue Freak for something I say. You think that's right?
 
#6,446
#6,446
n_huffhines said:
And you think that's right? You are not my guy, bro. That's ****ed up. Cool that the laws allow it tho, I guess.

VN censors us. You gonna sue Freak for something I say. You think that's right?
Click to expand...
Actually I'm pretty sure if someone seriously threatened someone... and followed thru then he could be liable...if he is not covered under 230....I don't believe you should be allowed to censor speech in a public forum.. now if your saying it not a public forum then you should be liable to any information or action that happen on the forum.. right now social media is protected and can censor.. they have it both ways...
 
#6,448
#6,448
whodeycin85 said:
Actually I'm pretty sure if someone seriously threatened someone... and followed thru then he could be liable...if he is not covered under 230....I don't believe you should be allowed to censor speech in a public forum.. now if your saying it not a public forum then you should be liable to any information or action that happen on the forum.. right now social media is protected and can censor.. they have it both ways...
Click to expand...

You realize this is a public forum and that Freak has it both ways and it's a completely necessary protection for these types of forums to survive. Nobody is talking about threats. We are talking about every kind of suit you can possibly imagine. Whodey hurt my feelings so I'm suing freak. It doesn't matter if I can win the suit. He can drown in suits. Think about what people who hate Elon Musk would be doing to Twitter without 230. That's what section 230 protects against.
 
#6,449
#6,449
n_huffhines said:
You realize this is a public forum and that Freak has it both ways and it's a completely necessary protection for these types of forums to survive. Nobody is talking about threats. We are talking about every kind of suit you can possibly imagine. Whodey hurt my feelings so I'm suing freak. It doesn't matter if I can win the suit. He can drown in suits. Think about what people who hate Elon Musk would be doing to Twitter without 230. That's what section 230 protects against.
Click to expand...
Absolutely and I feel that if u are protected by 230, you should no longer have the right to censor speech... if you control your forum without 230 then your are liable...
 
#6,450
#6,450
whodeycin85 said:
Absolutely and I feel that if u are protected by 230, you should no longer have the right to censor speech... if you control your forum without 230 then your are liable...
Click to expand...

These forums cannot exist as they are without censorship. Everything becomes 4chan, which is a cesspool. No censorship of threats. No censorship of pornographic material. No censorship of harassment. Profanity. Hell, you couldn't even ban people because that's a form of censorship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol and NashVol11
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top