The Big Tech March to Silence Free Speech

#751
#751
Ttucke11 said:
If all they were doing was stopping calls for violence then maybe you would have a point. But, it isn't and you know that.
Click to expand...

Tell me then, what is my point? I've already stated that my only loyalty in this regard is that private business should be able to grant or deny service at their sole discretion.
 
#752
#752
MontyPython said:
So, in sum, you disagree with two independent coroner reports, plus the video that shows the cop's knee on his neck, plus the video where George Floyd says, "I can't breathe".

Got it.

So if murder didn't happen in your opinion, what did?
Click to expand...

I’m familiar with 1 “independent coroner report” (meaning the corner hired by the families attorney, which is the opposite of independent). What’s the second what you’re talking about?

I’m not sure you watched the video. He was saying he couldn’t breathe well before anyone had a knee on him.

Lmao murder? Wow. Assault charges would be appropriate. Man slaughter could be made also but is more difficult to win.

If you charge with murder you are saying he intended to kill the man. If you believe you can prove that, you’re asking for more riots when he gets acquitted
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Kristy*
#753
#753
Septic said:
Tell me then, what is my point?
Click to expand...

It seems you believe conservatives are being hypocrites in regards to the gay cake ordeal you keep referencing and trying to equate social media banning people from their product as a similar situation. But you keep referencing their reason for banning people is inciting violence. We both know that plenty of conservatives have been banned from numerous media, when they did no such thing. We both know big tech's reason is solely "we do not like them or their ideas". If their reason was to actually stop violence they would've done so back in the summer. They are the hypocrites themselves. Whether they are justified in that response is up for debate, but let us not pretend they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Rickyvol77 and Kristy*
#754
#754
Ttucke11 said:
It seems you believe conservatives are being hypocrites in regards to the gay cake ordeal you keep referencing and trying to equate social media banning people from their product as a similar situation. But you keep referencing their reason for banning people is inciting violence. We both know that plenty of conservatives have been banned from numerous media, when they did no such thing. We both know big tech's reason is solely "we do not like them or their ideas". If their reason was to actually stop violence they would've done so back in the summer. They are the hypocrites themselves.
Click to expand...

No my point was that the poster implied it to be "tyranny" when some private businesses choose to not do business with a customer, but also called a business well within it's rights to do the same when it came to something they disagreed with. The circumstances are different but the principal is the same. Either a business should have the right, or they shouldn't. Choose wisely.

"Big techs" banning of certain users is acceptable, comforting and civilized because they are attempting to stop the spread of further (credible) violence against lawmakers or fuel insurrection against the government.
 
#755
#755
If I were on Twitter and/or Facebook attempting to organize a peaceful, lawful, non-violent, public protest on deficit spending, would those platforms ban me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#757
#757
Septic said:
No my point was that the poster implied it to be "tyranny" when some private businesses choose to not do business with a customer, but also called a business well within it's rights to do the same when it came to something they disagreed with. The circumstances are different but the principal is the same. Either a business should have the right, or they shouldn't. Choose wisely.

"Big techs" banning of certain users is acceptable, comforting and civilized because they are attempting to stop the spread of further (credible) violence against lawmakers or fuel insurrection against the government.
Click to expand...

Courts sided with the gay couple, forcing the baker to provide them cakes as they would anyone else. Court going to decide with Trump and Parlor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Ttucke11
#758
#758
McDad said:
If I were on Twitter and/or Facebook attempting to organize a peaceful, lawful, non-violent, public protest on deficit spending, would those platforms ban me?
Click to expand...

That's what Eventbrite is for.
 
#760
#760
Kristy* said:
Courts sided with the gay couple, forcing the baker to provide them cakes as they would anyone else. Court going to decide with Trump and Parlor?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that really isn't the point. Let me ask you, do you agree with the courts decision in the gay cake case? Or do think that the business should have the right to make the decision on who it wants to do business with?
 
#762
#762
Septic said:
No my point was that the poster implied it to be "tyranny" when one private business chose to not do business with a customer, but also called a business well within it's rights to do the same when it came to something they disagreed with. The circumstances are different but the principal is the same.

"Big techs" banning of certain users is acceptable, comforting and civilized because they are attempting to stop the spread of further violence against lawmakers or fuel insurrection against the government.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you, but I can see how the principle can be argued as being the same. However, this sentence is a bold-faced lie. That's definitely the guise they are using, but it has crept way past that. They were censoring prior to this. And why would they not have stopped the ANTIFA Seattle, Chicago, Houston Twitter accounts who organized extremely violent, destructive riots? Why can I go on Twitter and find hundreds of posts wishing death upon the President, which surely instigated some into violence this summer? Was that good violence since it was against private businesses you act like you hold so esteemed, but now that it is against the government it's bad violence? For pointing out the alleged hypocrisies of the right in regards to the businesses, you seem to have quite the hypocritical dilemma going on in your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, allvol123, Kristy* and 1 other person
#764
#764
McDad said:
If I were on Twitter and/or Facebook attempting to organize a peaceful, lawful, non-violent, public protest on deficit spending, would those platforms ban me?
Click to expand...
It would all depend on the make up of likes and retweets
 
#769
#769
Septic said:
Perhaps, but that really isn't the point. Let me ask you, do you agree with the courts decision in the gay cake case? Or do think that the business should have the right to make the decision on who it wants to do business with?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I feel like the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse service to anyone. But I don't feel like they should have to make a cake that specifically goes against their beliefs. Allow the couple to buy cakes or other items available to anyone else. They shouldn't be forced to put 2 grooms or 2 brides as the topper or to write their names.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ttucke11
#775
#775
Kristy* said:
Yes and no. I feel like the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse service to anyone. But I don't feel like they should have to make a cake that specifically goes against their beliefs. Allow the couple to buy cakes or other items available to anyone else. They shouldn't be forced to put 2 grooms or 2 brides as the topper or to write their names.
Click to expand...

Sorry, and while I understand why you don't want to - you have to pick a lane and support your position; otherwise you're simply advocating for regulatory decisions to be based solely on feelz.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top