Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 minute ago, JustinCharge said:

democrats have never ever upheld free speech.  it only looked that way because they controlled all the major newspapers and the 3 TV networks.  they falsely pinned the great depression on hoover when roosevelt caused a crash to turn into a depression with crippling taxes on business.  they falsely blamed nixon for vietnam when we were knee deep in it for years and nixon got us out.  the democrats go unchallenged on these pivotal events because they controlled the entire press.

Lol, Hoover?? Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Cdub100 3,929]

3 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Well this is a great day. I may attempt to get an account there.

Same. I deleted my account years ago after Twitter started playing politics

[Gepetto 1,371]

This topic is on fire!

[Cdub100 3,929]

Who wants to bet in the coming months/year after Elon finalizes the purchase The government will take a hard look at Twitters Section 230 protection

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

24 minutes ago, vomit said:

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were against govt regulation and frivolous lawsuits

I am completely against it

 

[vomit 502]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

It's cute that you think the internet is free and open. Because it's not. Just start your own (insert whatever) is total BS when the apple and Andriod stores won't host your app because it doesn't agree with free and open speech. When Banks won't allow you to bank. When ISPs block your site from loading. The internet is not free and open at least not anymore and hasn't been in a long time. The fact you think we have anything free and open anything says a lot about your childish view of the world.

Oh, look at the little faggit that can't figure out how to read the stuff he wants.  Thats your problem.  There are sites that spew the Bs you love, that where you got your opinions from.

[vomit 502]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I am completely against it

 

You said you wanted section 230 repealed, right?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

27 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You mean Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996?

That’d be a pretty dumb opinion, since this forum couldn’t exist without it. Or Twitter, or Facebook, or pretty much any online discussion medium

oh yah and net neutrality is going to end the world

these companies are protected by 230, and if they are then they shouldnt be able to censor, just like the phone company can't censor you.  It has nothing to do with platforms existing

makes sense to me

[IGotWorms 4,058]

3 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Who wants to bet in the coming months/year after Elon finalizes the purchase The government will take a hard look at Twitters Section 230 protection

And how would that happen? It doesn’t apply company by company—it protects everyone

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

2 minutes ago, vomit said:

You said you wanted section 230 repealed, right?

im not exactly versed on it 100%, the video I posted makes sense, I am for treating the interweb being treated as a phone company is

it is my understanding that if a company is deemed a publisher, they can be sued, and since they are editing (censoring) they should be allowed to be

the phone company cannot be sued for me and you having a conversation regardless of what it is

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

oh yah and net neutrality is going to end the world

these companies are protected by 230, and if they are then they shouldnt be able to censor, just like the phone company can't censor you.  It has nothing to do with platforms existing

makes sense to me

That guy has no idea what he’s talking about 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

12 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Lol, Hoover?? Where do you come up with this stuff?

From his rectum. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,491]

18 minutes ago, vomit said:

See this is what you idiots don't understand.  The internet is free and open for any idiot to spew any BS they want.  If a service like Twitter decides they don't want the worst of the worst, then thats their right.  There will always be another place for idiots to spread Bs.  On 4 Chan you can say whatever you want.  Conservatives get kicked off Twitter, they can start their own site like parlor.  Thats America!  You don't like CNN, go start foxnews.

It's childish to whine like faggits over this.

Hunters Laptop was the worst of the worst? Tucker Carlson? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

That guy has no idea what he’s talking about 

but you do

 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

"I'm not sure what I think...but I watched this video and it makes sense..."

 

That means you are an idiot incapable of reading and forming your own thoughts. 

[vomit 502]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

im not exactly versed on it 100%, the video I posted makes sense, I am for treating the interweb being treated as a phone company is

it is my understanding that if a company is deemed a publisher, they can be sued, and since they are editing (censoring) they should be allowed to be

the phone company cannot be sued for me and you having a conversation regardless of what it is

 

If a website is allowed to be sued then they will not allow any content that they could get sued over.  Thats the end of free exchange of information.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

but you do

 

The dumb sh1t hasn’t even heard of “Internet service providers.” Seriously, do you just believe anything?

[JustinCharge 2,397]

4 minutes ago, vomit said:

If a website is allowed to be sued then they will not allow any content that they could get sued over.  Thats the end of free exchange of information.

where are you getting this?  you didnt even read what he said and proposed something completely different.  I mean, what you said is SO off-tangent, that it sounds like you have a sheet of paper in front of you with canned answers regarding websites getting sued, you didnt have any idea how to respond to him, so you just typed in one of the canned answers.

[jonmx 2,429]

41 minutes ago, vomit said:

So without these people being on Twitter, I'm assuming you never heard from them again, right?

That is not the point.  Such high-profile and mass bannings has a chilling effect on free speech.  Of course you don't give a crap about free speech, so it pointless to discuss with you.  

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

9 minutes ago, vomit said:

If a website is allowed to be sued then they will not allow any content that they could get sued over.  Thats the end of free exchange of information.

thats what I am saying

by them determining what can or can't be on their platform they are then responsible for what is published

by classifying them like the phone company they are not

you can either be a publisher or a platform

twitter, facebook etc should be platforms, not publishers, but them actively censoring they are publishers 

[avoiding injuries 1,589]

47 minutes ago, vomit said:

So without these people being on Twitter, I'm assuming you never heard from them again, right?

————————————————-> Goalposts

[vomit 502]

13 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

where are you getting this?  you didnt even read what he said and proposed something completely different.  I mean, what you said is SO off-tangent, that it sounds like you have a sheet of paper in front of you with canned answers regarding websites getting sued, you didnt have any idea how to respond to him, so you just typed in one of the canned answers.

He doesn't understand the law, he admitted this, and neither do you.

In case you want to learn, https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-230-what-it-why-it-was-created-and-what-it-has-achieved

 

[vomit 502]

10 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

————————————————-> Goalposts

Why cry about it?  Life lesson, stop being a douche 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

13 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

thats what I am saying

by them determining what can or can't be on their platform they are then responsible for what is published

by classifying them like the phone company they are not

you can either be a publisher or a platform

twitter, facebook etc should be platforms, not publishers, but them actively censoring they are publishers 

This literally makes no sense, and what you are essentially arguing for is more lawsuits and less freedom of speech

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

3 minutes ago, vomit said:

He doesn't understand the law, he admitted this, and neither do you.

In case you want to learn, https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-230-what-it-why-it-was-created-and-what-it-has-achieved

 

Section 230 includes two main provisions: one that protects online services and users from liability when they do not remove third-party content, and one that protects them from liability when they do remove content.

 

perfect thank you this is what I oppose.  If they are removing content then they are responsible for what content stays, and therefore should be responsible for it

[Hardcore troubadour 15,491]

Why are liberals so mad about this? They don’t like rich guys being in charge anymore? It hasn’t seemed to bother them until now. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

This literally makes no sense, and what you are essentially arguing for is more lawsuits and less freedom of speech

wrong, I am for facebook and twitter etc, not censoring ANYTHING and not being responsible for what is posted

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why are liberals so mad about this? They don’t like rich guys being in charge anymore? It hasn’t seemed to bother them until now. 

its ok when its Disney, or Bezos

 

[vomit 502]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

This literally makes no sense, and what you are essentially arguing for is more lawsuits and less freedom of speech

He doesn't want to strike down 230 like he said, he just wants it rewritten.  He wants to open up the ability for civil litigation if a site censors anything, getting rid of the good faith clause.  That's dangerous.

In general, allowing civil litigation is bad.

[vomit 502]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Section 230 includes two main provisions: one that protects online services and users from liability when they do not remove third-party content, and one that protects them from liability when they do remove content.

 

perfect thank you this is what I oppose.  If they are removing content then they are responsible for what content stays, and therefore should be responsible for it

So then what they will do is remove nothing or everything.  Both are dangerous.

You know that Biden is on your side, right?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

3 minutes ago, vomit said:

So then what they will do is remove nothing or everything.  Both are dangerous.

You know that Biden is on your side, right?

good he should be defending free speech, however Biden has adamantly shown hes not really, hes all about silencing those who disagree with me

I pick my side based on topics, not who is for or against them

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

Michael Malice meeting with ELON 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

6 minutes ago, vomit said:

He doesn't want to strike down 230 like he said, he just wants it rewritten.  He wants to open up the ability for civil litigation if a site censors anything, getting rid of the good faith clause.  That's dangerous.

In general, allowing civil litigation is bad.

It hardly even makes sense. Civil liability to whom? Usually the issue is some third person wants to sue the provider for what they allowed on their platform, like for defamation or tortious interference. So I’m not even sure what a person who had their content removed would sue for

[vomit 502]

7 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

good he should be defending free speech, however Biden has adamantly shown hes not really, hes all about silencing those who disagree with me

I pick my side based on topics, not who is for or against them

 

If you support free speech then I can't see how you would want to repeal 230.

Heres another good read for you. https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-section-230-reform-endangers-internet-free-speech/

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

3 minutes ago, vomit said:

If you support free speech then I can't see how you would want to repeal 230.

Heres another good read for you. https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-section-230-reform-endangers-internet-free-speech/

like I said at least 3 times

I want platforms to be classified  like the phone companies

that is all

 

[vomit 502]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It hardly even makes sense. Civil liability to whom? Usually the issue is some third person wants to sue the provider for what they allowed on their platform, like for defamation or tortious interference. So I’m not even sure what a person who had their content removed would sue for

Discrimination.  It's because these people feel like Twitter removed more of the content they support vs the content the other side supports.  It's immature.

[vomit 502]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

like I said at least 3 times

I want platforms to be classified  like the phone companies

that is all

 

And I'm telling you that would create a whole bunch more problems which could result in a reduction of free speech.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 minute ago, vomit said:

Discrimination.  It's because these people feel like Twitter removed more of the content they support vs the content the other side supports.  It's immature.

You can’t sue for “discrimination.” Maaybe racial discrimination or something like that, if you could really prove it, but not just for generally not supporting things you feel are correct.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

3 minutes ago, vomit said:

And I'm telling you that would create a whole bunch more problems which could result in a reduction of free speech.

and I am telling you, they said the same thing about Net Neutrality, so I guess we just don't know

 

[Baker Boy 1,703]

10 minutes ago, vomit said:

Discrimination.  It's because these people feel like Twitter removed more of the content they support vs the content the other side supports.  It's immature.

Big Tech censored Biden criticism more than 600 times over 2 years: report

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/big-tech-censored-biden-criticism-more-than-600-times-over-2-years-report