This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
2020 US Presidential Election. (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 09 Jan 21 12.30pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
It's bs though isn't it? Trump hasn't been banned from communicating with his supporters in any way at all. He has been banned by a privately business from the space it owns. Other businesses are available and whilst President he can communicate with everyone through official channels. When he is isn't he will have no less, but also no more, rights than anyone else. This idea that FB or Twitter are obliged to allow whoever wishes to post whatever they want is simply wrong. They aren't a publically owned platform and to make it a legal obligation to allow unrestricted access would open a huge pandoras box of conflicting rights and obligations.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stirlingsays 09 Jan 21 12.34pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
We keep hearing this waffle about Twitter and other silicon valley companies being able to censor presidents and the like because they aren't the state. But the state gave them section 230 protections....the state gave them many advantages and law protections when they started up that aren't given in other sectors. So it's all so much BS. They are unelected abusers of the freedoms and advantages they were gifted. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2021 12.35pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 09 Jan 21 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It's bs though isn't it? Trump hasn't been banned from communicating with his supporters in any way at all. He has been banned by a privately business from the space it owns. Other businesses are available and whilst President he can communicate with everyone through official channels. When he is isn't he will have no less, but also no more, rights than anyone else. This idea that FB or Twitter are obliged to allow whoever wishes to post whatever they want is simply wrong. They aren't a publically owned platform and to make it a legal obligation to allow unrestricted access would open a huge pandoras box of conflicting rights and obligations. Whilst yours is a perfectly valid argument it doesn’t mean that those platforms can’t pick and choose who they allow to post to suit a political agenda.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SavoyTruffle 09 Jan 21 12.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
We keep hearing this waffle about Twitter and other silicon valley companies being able to censor presidents and the like because they aren't the state. But the state gave them section 230 protections....the state gave them many advantages and law protections when they started up that aren't given in other sectors. So it's all so much BS. They are unelected abusers of the freedoms and advantages they were gifted. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2021 12.35pm) The great irony is if section 230 had been removed as Trump tried to do with the veto of the Defence Bill, it would have made internet platforms liable for any content posted on their platforms thus setting in motion the biggest purge of accounts, posts and content for fear of crippling lawsuits.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matthau South Croydon 09 Jan 21 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Q told us back in April his twitter will be removed - check attached Once your awake it’s like watching a movie. Bring on the popcorn
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Stirlingsays 09 Jan 21 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SavoyTruffle
The great irony is if section 230 had been removed as Trump tried to do with the veto of the Defence Bill, it would have made internet platforms liable for any content posted on their platforms thus setting in motion the biggest purge of accounts, posts and content for fear of crippling lawsuits. Trump made many mistakes....probably the biggest was not dealing with his enemies when he had the chance....because they won't be as kind as he was. 1D chess. We hear all this waffle about impeachment, but the republicans in the Senate aren't going to provide the two-thirds needed.....so that's just more typical lefty wish fulfillment. Still, I hear Biden is doing more of his 'healing' the other day, comparing Cruz and co to the Nazis and Goebbels. Fun, fun, fun. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2021 12.51pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  09 Jan 21 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It's bs though isn't it? Trump hasn't been banned from communicating with his supporters in any way at all. He has been banned by a privately business from the space it owns. Other businesses are available and whilst President he can communicate with everyone through official channels. When he is isn't he will have no less, but also no more, rights than anyone else. This idea that FB or Twitter are obliged to allow whoever wishes to post whatever they want is simply wrong. They aren't a publically owned platform and to make it a legal obligation to allow unrestricted access would open a huge pandoras box of conflicting rights and obligations. But this isn’t “anyone who wishes to post”. It’s the President of America.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 09 Jan 21 1.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SavoyTruffle
The great irony is if section 230 had been removed as Trump tried to do with the veto of the Defence Bill, it would have made internet platforms liable for any content posted on their platforms thus setting in motion the biggest purge of accounts, posts and content for fear of crippling lawsuits. This is true. It’s also true they’re private companies - and therefore like it or not it’s up to them who or what they want to ban. Does this make their platforms entirely impartial and fair? No. Is any platform entirely impartial and fair? No. It is what it is - even if a bill was passed to force them to be ‘impartial’ you’d get the same result anyway. The bigger issue is what social media itself is doing to society as a whole - not just politically. It’s 50/50 bad to good, but at some point its got to land on one of those sides. Currently I can’t see it being the good one.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 09 Jan 21 1.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Personally I have zero issue with Twitter or Facebook banning who or what they want. They are private companies and as such should be allowed to do that. where I am far more wary is the decision by Google to drop Parler from its App Store given that it seems to be basing that decision on the fact the Parler does not censor its postings in a way that Google likes. The issue for the Right is to build up its own internet platforms. And to boycott companies and firms accordingly. Go woke, go broke is the adage so lets make that happen.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Jan 21 1.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Personally I have zero issue with Twitter or Facebook banning who or what they want. They are private companies and as such should be allowed to do that. where I am far more wary is the decision by Google to drop Parler from its App Store given that it seems to be basing that decision on the fact the Parler does not censor its postings in a way that Google likes. Kind of hard to do that when both Apple and Google refuse access to phone apps. Also, when payment processors refuse to deal with you these companies get forced to use Chinese and Russia versions who are motivationally dodgy.....and then get blamed for it. I could remind you of course that the original Youtube was fine and didn't take sides politically.....also Twitter was not a political player for years. So I think a nominally impartial position is certainly possible based upon the libertarian lines that were begun.....but this has been trampled on for years now and I don't see a way back.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Uphill  Bedford 09 Jan 21 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The immense damage done to the reputation of the USA worldwide is appalling - as is the pro-Trump followers fanatical and violent support for their 'case' I worry that this maniac may yet do something disastrous to the free world in his remaining tenure of office. January 20 can't come soon enough.
Man and boy Palace since my first game in 1948 sitting on my dad's shoulders |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 09 Jan 21 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SavoyTruffle
The great irony is if section 230 had been removed as Trump tried to do with the veto of the Defence Bill, it would have made internet platforms liable for any content posted on their platforms thus setting in motion the biggest purge of accounts, posts and content for fear of crippling lawsuits. Exactly correct. Including those that the right prefer like Gab and Parler.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.