It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump / Cancel Culture: "More COUNTRIES should ban Twitter and Facebook"

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

More than a grain of truth to that!!!

A couple three generations ago, calling someone a liar could find you facing them with a blade, or a dueling pistol.

I've sometimes thought that legalizing dueling, again, would not necessarily be a bad thing.

It might keep some from allowing their alligator jaws to overload their Tweety-bird butts.
edit on 6/13/2021 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


So this is inaccurate "So what are you doing if not questioning my views?" because that wasn't me.

You and I are discussing our views in a thread based on the OP. Please stop trying to confuse the situation. It is disingenuous and dishonest.


And calling the use of that tactic revenge or defense can be influenced by bias.

Really?

Whether or not Twitter is doing something that upsets people is not something that can be influenced by bias. They either are continuing to offend people through a specific agenda or they aren't. Now, one might consider their actions proper, but the fact that they are continuing is not open to serious debate.

Defense can only occur when one is under assault. Revenge can occur in either case, but the possibility of defense calls, IMO, for the benefit of the doubt.

Moral relativism is a dangerous thing. Most people agree that murder is wrong, and it is against the law except in cases of self-defense. Using the definition of defense, one can make an appropriate determination whether one was actually acting in self-defense, simply by asking the question: "Was this person being attacked?" Moral relativism can come in, however, and say that the attacker was also in fear of his life and thus was justified in instigating the attack (I have actually had people try to argue that point with me). Moral relativism can come in and say that an inconvenience is just cause to invoke self defense (something like someone driving slow). Moral relativism can come in and say that is someone was simply having a bad day, they may have felt like they were being attacked.

These are actually arguments that lawyers will attempt to use to defend someone when the case is strong against them.

However, moral relativism also opens the door to anarchy. If any excuse can be used to justify a crime, there is no such thing as a criminal act. Anything can be justified and there is then no reason for law to exist. If I can shoot a random person on the street, and can justify it by saying I was scared when there was no cause to be scared, I am legally allowed to commit murder on a whim.


When you sign a contract and oblige yourself to follow the rules, even if they company tells you that they can change on a whim, that is on you and you know that going in.

In most cases, that is true. I tend to fall on the side of private property rights in most cases.

However, this is not a situation where Twitter simply changed the contract. Twitter is literally violating it's own rules. Those rules are that Twitter will allow free speech within certain guidelines. Yet, it has regularly and consistently allowed violations of its posting rules when such violations support a progressive agenda (allowing BLM to spew hateful rhetoric and broadcast illegal actions) while at the same time extending the stated limitations on those rules when doing so allows the banning of conservative views.

ATS, in contrast, does not consider politics or political views when enforcing guidelines.

There are also legal limits on how rules may be changed. A house may be bought on contract with an adjustable interest rate, for example. Many mortgages have a clause that allows for an adjustable rate. Typically, this adjustment is specified in relation to a widely accepted rate, such as the Prime Mortgage rate. It is still legal, however, for a bank to state in the contract that they may adjust the rate without specifying how that rate will be adjusted. Few if any do this, simply because it can and has lead to lawsuits over their legal right to enforce such an arbitrary arrangement. However, it is still legally permissible... what is not legally permissible is to decide that the client will suddenly now pay 300% interest because it says in the contract the bank can decide that.

Twitter has been granted legal protection from lawsuits based on the opinions of members being expressed on their forum, as has ATS. I support that for an open forum. I do not support it, and the legislation backing this does not permit it, when said forum operates as a publisher. A newspaper may not legally publish material that is slanderous for example; if they do they can be sued for slander. An open forum may contain a post that slanders someone, because that forum is not charged with making legal decisions... the onus of liability is on the poster, not the forum (and since forums are typically anonymous, that anonymity protects the poster). Twitter at present is covered under the "open forum" definition and thus is immune from legal prosecution concerning the content of their site.

Twitter, however, through unequal and improper application of policy, as well as through actual violations of their own policies, uses their site to present a hidden political agenda... hidden because it is not openly specified in their mission statement. At the same time, Twitter uses its monopoly status to make it extremely difficult for anyone else to build a competing, effective platform. Indeed, there have been documented reports of Twitter, Facebook, and Google conspiring to remove smaller platforms (Parler?) because they represented competition. This raises two legal challenges: Twitter is acting as a publisher by arbitrarily removing posts that it disagrees with politically and therefore is no longer an "open forum"; Twitter has established itself as a member of an oligarchy, which places it in the legal definition of a monopoly.

I recant this not because you don't know it already; you do. I recant it to re-establish the actual situation, as you tend to try to change the conversation from the specific to the abstract whenever your position is indefensible.

Therefore, since the US government has reneged on its obligation to enforce its laws equitably, it becomes the duty of those who are adversely affected by the actions of Twitter to take steps themselves to mitigate damages. That is different from a revenge motive; it falls under the heading of defense as long as Twitter is using legal trickery to operate as a publisher without accepting such liability and taking steps to squelch other platforms.

As to Twitter's actions not being an "attack," it certainly is. The purpose of Twitter is to allow social networking and provide a forum for exchange of information and opinion. Using it's size and monopoly status, Twitter's actions serve to unduly influence public perception of political decisions, not by allowing public discourse, but by controlling public discourse. That allows politicians who would not normally have support sufficient to implement political agendas to still implement them, and many of these political agendas are directly damaging to the financial, social, and sometimes even the physical livelihood of citizens.

I repeat: if one is expected to simply "find somewhere else to post" when they disagree with Twitter's actions, Twitter and those who support it can simply "find somewhere else to live" when they disagree with government actions against Twitter. That sword cuts in both directions.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Ironically, it was actually sites like Twitter who took the ability to confront others safely to the extreme. Social networking used to be how children established a "pecking order"; certain rules were observed because not observing them had serious consequences (like finding the person you just wronged behind the school in a very bad mood). Thus, society was maintained through physical contact with others and forced expectations of how one would treat others in society.

Today, there is often little to no physical contact with others. Most of the after-school activities that once served to solidify social traditions have been replaced with "tweets." One can post a message, no matter how hateful or degrading, and never face any serious repercussions for it. They sit safely behind their screen, protected by Internet anonymity, and the worst they can have happen is they have to make another (free) account. The law is trying to catch up; I have heard of cases where continual harassment that led to a suicide was prosecuted... but that is still a far cry from having to remove one's teeth from their victim's fist. The former serves to imprison individuals; the latter serves to instruct individuals.

Add in a political agenda as Twitter has done, and one now has a society based on moral relativism, not on a moral foundation. That is the beginning of anarchy and the fall of society.

I honestly believe that, were Internet access now disappear overnight, an entire generation would wind up killing off most of society. They have no idea how to act around actual people. If one were given to the dramatic, one could make a case of Twitter being an ELE agent.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You and I are discussing our views in a thread based on the OP. Please stop trying to confuse the situation. It is disingenuous and dishonest.

But I was talking about the OP and it wasn't addressed specifically to you.


Whether or not Twitter is doing something that upsets people is not something that can be influenced by bias.

No, but the way people see it can.


However, this is not a situation where Twitter simply changed the contract. Twitter is literally violating it's own rules.

You know there is a bit of text somewhere in there that might be something like this "at our own discretion". That is all that is needed for your argument to fall flat. It is sneaky and it means things can/will be applied unevenly/unfairly but, it is what it is.


I repeat: if one is expected to simply "find somewhere else to post" when they disagree with Twitter's actions, Twitter and those who support it can simply "find somewhere else to live" when they disagree with government actions against Twitter. That sword cuts in both directions.

I never said otherwise. My position is number 1 in that short list I posted.

OP was calling out those who might flip-flop. Honestly, that doesn't make a difference either but here we are.



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


No, but the way people see it can.

Not really. Either people are lodging complaints or they aren't.

As I said, one can dismiss those complaints due to bias. However, that does not change the fact there are complaints.


You know there is a bit of text somewhere in there that might be something like this "at our own discretion". That is all that is needed for your argument to fall flat. It is sneaky and it means things can/will be applied unevenly/unfairly but, it is what it is.

That bit of text is then subject to legal review. Just as in my example, a bank cannot suddenly start charging an excessive interest rate because of vague language in the mortgage, neither can Twitter just do whatever they feel like because of vague language in the agreement. There are laws that govern things like mechantability, safety issues, and a few that even limit customers. In Twitter's case, I specified the law that prevents them from acting as a publisher and still accepting legal protection as an open forum. If you agree that they can operate outside the law, then why can't Phillip Morris start running cigarette commercials on TV again?

A closer example would be your power company deciding that they will not supply power to anyone who has a particular political sign in their yard. They are actually under no legal obligation to provide power to anyone... so why can't they decide who they will and won't supply power to?

Answer: because as a public utility providing a service and operating under a (necessary) monopoly, they are forbidden to do so by law. It nay be true that they are not obligated to provide power, but that simply means they can close their doors whenever they wish; it does not mean they can discriminate arbitrarily. Their terms of service mean diddley squat when it comes to picking and choosing customers arbitrarily. The entire premise of this argument centers around whether or not Twitter is a service that is expected to be offered to the general public and operates without effective competition. If they are, which I believe, they then have a public obligation, founded in law, to provide their service on a non-arbitrary basis.


My position is number 1 in that short list I posted.

Mine would be position 1 except for the conditions I keep pointing out. Considering those, I switch to position 2.

One can be for private property rights and still believe in equity of service. I also believe that just because a business says they retain the right to refuse service to anyone, that doesn't mean they can exclude a race because of that race.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Not really. Either people are lodging complaints or they aren't.

As I said, one can dismiss those complaints due to bias. However, that does not change the fact there are complaints.

Who said anything about lodged complaints? I'm talking about how people see their actions, whether they lodge a complaint or not. That is what we are talking about here. Some people participating probably don't even have an account with them.


That bit of text is then subject to legal review. Just as in my example, a bank cannot suddenly start charging an excessive interest rate because of vague language in the mortgage, neither can Twitter just do whatever they feel like because of vague language in the agreement.

Banks and public utilities have rules set above the individual companies that regulate that. It isn't the same.


Mine would be position 1 except for the conditions I keep pointing out. Considering those, I switch to position 2.

So you think the president of nigeria is wrong in banning twitter?



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Who said anything about lodged complaints?

I did. Notice the avatar next to the post... that gives the author.

We were discussing actions taken by Twitter that violated their own policies. That would be complaints. If there were no complaints, then we have no proof anyone is dissatisfied with Twitter.


Some people participating probably don't even have an account with them.

I don't. Never have had one.


Banks and public utilities have rules set above the individual companies that regulate that. It isn't the same.

It certainly is. All businesses are required to comply with certain standards. And if Twitter is some sort of "human right" it then follows that Twitter is a public utility operating under a monopoly.

If not a "human right," then Twitter is still subject to the same monopoly restrictions as any other company. Any attempt at controlling competition should force a breakup of Twitter.


So you think the president of nigeria is wrong in banning twitter?

The President of Nigeria apparently has the authority to do so. I don't live there; my opinion on his actions is irrelevant. The people of Nigeria, now, that might be another story.

Since Twitter banned the Nigerian President, I can see how it would at least appear that Twitter planned to use their networking manipulation practices to affect Nigerian politics. That would be a political attack. Any leader of any country has the right (and I would say the duty) to protect their country from undue foreign political influences. So in that case, yes, I believe he may have been correct in his actions to circumvent an incorrect action by Twitter.

Had Twitter not given the impression that it intended to interfere in Nigerian politics, I would have the opposite opinion, that the President was overstepping his authority. Two wrongs may not make a right, but sometimes it takes a wrong to overcome another's wrong.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
So, you are basically saying sometimes you have to stoop to their level. It is wrong but justifiable.

I think we are done.



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


So, you are basically saying sometimes you have to stoop to their level. It is wrong but justifiable.

I think we are done.

Yes. Agreed.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join