The Goat Pen

So what is the 7/31/91 date? The date of that quote?

I guess you wouldn't be able to quote anything Hitler or Charlemagne or Alexander the Great said that might be construed as promoting violence either. Or Jesus, for that matter...

Agreed

hedge wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 8:32 am I guess you wouldn't be able to quote anything Hitler or Charlemagne or Alexander the Great said that might be construed as promoting violence either. Or Jesus, for that matter...

were they on twitter?

hedge wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 8:29 am "If you have a platform that can incite violence and its been proven, then the government has an obligation to step in , in the interest of its citizens."

You mean like how Trump used the platform of the presidency to incite violence? Interesting...

yea, they should probably do something about that , like ban him

oh yea, he was

Nobody should be banned or censored. You can't regulate that properly. Neither the Ayotollah or Trump should be censored. The only reason conservatives are bringing up the tweets like this is because it is mostly conservative ideas that are being censored. We are ok with -0- censorship on twitter. Liberals, not so much.

Let's say that Donald Trump jr. took $3.5 million from the mayor of Moscow. Let's say that Donald Trump, just a few days after Russia hacked our pipeline, lifted the sanctions on Russia's pipeline.

How would have that played?

I think the genie is out of the bottle on it

Its seems like an almost impossible task, but as long as there are examples of twitter ignoring an instigator and going after another along with the appearance of bias, Congress will act.

instead of a Marx talking about Rand Paul, what if he said that someone should say, shoot up a Republican charity softball game because the last guy didn't finish the job? How is that any different than asking people to fight for a fair election?

Congress isn't going to let that continue with 27 year old Gen Z guys at the keyboard controlling the access.

I've heard it said that audits are binary, but I guess if Trump still says there was fraud, well...

eCat wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 8:56 am

hedge wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 8:29 am "If you have a platform that can incite violence and its been proven, then the government has an obligation to step in , in the interest of its citizens."

You mean like how Trump used the platform of the presidency to incite violence? Interesting...

yea, they should probably do something about that , like ban him

oh yea, he was

Nice try at misdirection. Trump used his platform to incite violence, so, according to your suggestion, the government is has an obligation to step in. And they are. Trump's going to prison...

hedge wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 9:36 am

eCat wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 8:56 am

hedge wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 8:29 am "If you have a platform that can incite violence and its been proven, then the government has an obligation to step in , in the interest of its citizens."

You mean like how Trump used the platform of the presidency to incite violence? Interesting...

yea, they should probably do something about that , like ban him

oh yea, he was

Nice try at misdirection. Trump used his platform to incite violence, so, according to your suggestion, the government is has an obligation to step in. And they are. Trump's going to prison...

no its not misdirection.

If twitter stepped in to stop all acts of inciting violence, the government would have no reason to step in, they've had multiple opportunities to be self regulating and still do, but not for long if they don't get it under control.

as it stands now twitter picks and chooses who it addresses, and in doing so has a platform where groups of people can be targeted due to their intentional negligence.

do you know why there was an audit in New Hampshire?

sardis wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 9:08 am Nobody should be banned or censored. You can't regulate that properly. Neither the Ayotollah or Trump should be censored. The only reason conservatives are bringing up the tweets like this is because it is mostly conservative ideas that are being censored. We are ok with -0- censorship on twitter. Liberals, not so much.

Correct

I just banned IB...

eCat wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 9:53 am do you know why there was an audit in New Hampshire?

No

The first review in the forensic audit of Windham election returns has produced different vote totals than were reported right after the Nov. 3 election.

The four Republican candidates for state representative in Windham each got roughly 220 more votes through an audit of automated vote counting machines than reported on Election Day.

Meanwhile, Kristi St. Laurent, the top-finishing Democrat, got about 125 fewer votes from the audit than announced Nov. 3.


-------------------

binary indeed

DooKSucks wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:12 am

eCat wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 10:11 pm I believe at some point in the near future congress is going to set regulations for social media.

Granted, with the rightwing ideologues driving the bus, anything is possible, but constitutional jurisprudence is clear: absent narrowly tailored exceptions needed to serve a compelling government interest via the least intrusive/restrictive means possible, the government cannot regulate private speech, much less apply First Amendment protections to private entities.

Conservatives unwittingly helped bring this about via abolition of the fairness doctrine. The irony is palpable and delightful...

Thank God for Ronald Reagan's presidency. Fairness doctrine had to go. Removing that unnecessary regulation gave re-birth to AM radio beyond cake recipes and sports broadcasting. It gave birth to Rush Limbaugh and all that followed. But the Fairness Doctrine is really not the problem here.

The problem here is that Google, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Instagram are largely political entities. As such, they use their power to "self-regulate" their OWN portals and platforms by removing speech that the platform administrators disagree with, personally. The politics of the platform administrator permits what is allowed to REMAIN on the portal. Again, I don't have a problem with that (what, does the Facebook or Twitter user want their money back???????) But a conservative should know going in that their comments will be deleted. The only social media I use is youtube and my comments are routinely deleted based on nothing other than politics.

So if conservatives want to turn to Parler for their social networking because they feel they are less likely to have their comments deleted by the whims of a 27 year old administrator who gets his (or likely her) panties in a twist, so be it. The only recommendation that I would have for companies wanting to spin up social networking portals where conservatives don't have to worry about their speech being purged, is don't go cheap and quick and use Amazon Web Services for portal hosting. Its likely that the political whims of Amazon will predicate whether or not your site will be allowed to remain functional. Go slow and expensive. Get an IP address, get your own file servers, set up the host files, open the ports, and write your pages properly either using MVC & .Net or MVVM and Angular, I don't care, Microsoft SQL Server for the database, and .Net web services to hook everything together.

So, conservatives are all about self regulation, personal responsibility, no government interference, private enterprise being supreme, etc until the private entity acts within its rights to ban speech said entity does not feel appropriate?

I've got 3 days left on a 30 day suspension on FB. I posted a picture of Pete Rose grabbing his crotch in uniform from back in 71. 21 days after I posted it.