Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

That Thread about US current events


Raavi

Recommended Posts

And he experienced mental and physical abuse growing up and look how he turned out, they should allow him to be president 

Edited by Craigsters
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Craigsters said:

And he experienced mental and physical abuse growing up and look how he turned out, they should allow him to be president 

He was elected to lead, not to read. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Yeah, I checked Parler this morning...gone.

 

My concern is if such a large group thinks they keep having things striped from them they aren't going to settle down any time soon. 

 

First the election was stolen...and now their free speech via Parler is taken from them.

 

*keep in mind the election was not stolen and Parler does not = 1st amendment freespeech rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meet Eugene GoodmanThe police officer who faced the angry terrorist mob alone, armed with nothing but a baton, and led them away from the Senate chambers.

He was able to do so by taunting and evading the terrorists. Leading them away. And they followed him like greyhounds chasing a rabbit.

 

Why? Because he was black. The color of his skin and the prospect of beating up the darkie was just too enticing for these white supremacist terrorists to let go. One man lured them away from entering the Senate chambers. Where they likely would have been slaughtered, as the security officers in there were armed with automatics and pistols.

 

sh*t is like a movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
8 minutes ago, trip said:

Holy sh*t!

Wanna get a bit unnerved?  Maybe even a bit scared?

This is the video circulating on the right where it pretty much is a call to arms for Jan 20th.

Hosted on parler's domain.

 

Biden won't be expecting massive crowds due to social distancing anyway. 

 

He'll be inaugurated in front of the Capitol, while the Police engage the Trumpanzees in running battles a short distance away.  The only difference will be the Trumpanzees will have had their protective blanket of a sympathetic POTUS stripped away.  The police will be arresting in droves.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

He'll be inaugurated in front of the Capitol, while the Police engage the Trumpanzees in running battles a short distance away.  The only difference will be the Trumpanzees will have had their protective blanket of a sympathetic POTUS stripped away.  The police will be arresting in droves.

I think the bigger issue is this is the US and that DOESN'T happen here.  We shouldn't be expecting it...especially anticipating it.

 

It's 2021 - there shouldn't be arrests for treasonous acts or attempted treason.  

 

Maybe I'm just a bit weirded out since I'm in the US and one of the older members here.  I've seen the presidency switch parties without issue a number of times.

Edited by trip
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
7 minutes ago, trip said:

I think the bigger issue is this is the US and that DOESN'T happen here.  We shouldn't be expecting it...especially anticipating it.

 

It's 2021 - there shouldn't be arrests for treasonous acts or attempted treason.  

 

Maybe I'm just a bit weirded out since I'm in the US and one of the older members here.  I've seen the presidency switch parties without issue a number of times.

 

No, I totally agree.  I keep recalling the messages left between Presidents, the good nature and behaviour between them during transitions.  Take the letter from George Bush Snr, to Bill Clinton, George left it the last time he departed the Oval Office Desk.

DtUQF4BWoAAEgi9?format=jpg

 

It's a crying shame this process has been spoiled by a bad loser and his crying supporters.  Riots shouldn't happen on days like inauguration day, but Trumpanzees won't be convinced their leader has lost.  They're still convinced he'll be the one taking the oath, even now.

Edited by Uncle Sikee Atric
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 5:22 AM, sivispacem said:

Putting aside for a moment the fact it's quite simply wrong on a basic fact

ual level, it contributes literally nothing meaningful to claim someone or something is "closest" to a point of references they share absolutely no characteristics with. It's the logical equivalent of taking a collection of garden gnomes and asserting one has the largest penis.

 

 

Someone made a claim about Trump and our proximity to Fascism. I responded. If you believe it adds nothing to the conversation either take it out on the original poster or just ignore it whatsoever. 

 

Quote

An intentionally vague term that you can mean pretty much whatever you want. Given that I was alive during part of them I consider the 80s "recent history" as would a great many other people, and you can't honestly be suggesting that Ronnie was less of a fascist than Obama.

 

 

I know its vague, and the point was merely that Trump is not the closest to Fascism that we have gotten as recently as 1 administration ago. 

 

You misunderstand, this is not a conversation about Obama. Its about recent memory and actions much fiercer than Trump's. I don't care if you'll argue that Reagan is more fascist than Obama.

 

Cause I agree that he was moreso than Trump. The point was that Trump isn't this new level we've never reached before. And yes, Reagan was much fiercer than Obama.

 

 

Quote

You have got to be joking. Donald Trump has done far more than simply "sh*tpost on Twitter"; he has perpetrated a sustained assault on individual liberties, worked to create a shadow government through changes to the political appointee system within the civil service by stuffing senior roles with allies then changing these positions into apolitical "lifer" roles (and indeed the inverse, changing truly apolitical roles into political ones do he could fire civil servants and replace them with yes men), encouraged and enabled the founding and expansion of what are effectively armed loyalist paramilitary groups under his ideological control and, judging by events on the 6th, directly commanded by him. 

 

 

Man, you need a US crash course. FDR literally threatened a branch of government because he couldn't have his way. He threatened the Supreme Court into getting his way. And he got his way.

 

Not that its relevant because I said "recent memory" but its funny how unimpressive your list is.

 

I don't mean this as a snide remark but you need to actually provide examples or evidence past just making a claim. I'm not a Trump supporter and I'm not some manner of cheerleader. I really would be interested in seeing his "assault on civil liberties". 

 

You can say that but you also need to prove it. And its not that I dont think its a possibility. Hey, maybe I missed it. But I sincerely would like some..I dunno, something past the claim.

 

As for appointing political yes men, haha. Welcome to US politics. Bidens appointees are a large swath of his own political cronies from the Obama administration. I wouldn't single Trump out on what everyone else does. 

 

This would be like me criticizing the Biden family and his cocaine using son for profiteering off the US name. Everyone does it.

 

Next you're gonna criticize him for "the unprecedented action of siding with his party all the time"

 

Quote

Attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the use of the judiciary to harass political opponents, the list goes on. Nepotism, cronyism, explicit support for white nationalist groups, the disproportionate use of military and law enforcement capabilities against ideological enemies, the striation of American political and cultural society into "us" and "them", and attempted corruption of the levers of political power and the fundamental separation between legislature, judiciary and executive in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

 

 

Again, examples. A lot of your claims are either just blanket statements or "literally everyone has done this" statements, but thrown onto a pile to make it seem impressive towards the ignorant.

 

And its a shame because you sure did type a lot. The funny thing is I can agree with some of it, or at least give you some manner of leeway. But come on. Trump was the first to striate society on "us vs them" 

 

get the f*ck outta here. Seriously that is so bad you have to be willfully ignorant to believe that. Youre either European or Trump was your first ever engagement in politics. Im sort of offended at how ridiculous that statement is.

 

Quote

1) most of the mechanisms and capabilities disclosed in the 2013+ surveillance leaks significantly predated the Obama regime. They're an allegation that could equally be levelled at any post-1990 presidency including that of Trump given that most of the powers still exist and the checks and balances are still effectively nonexistent. The association with Obama because the disclosure happened on his watch shouldn't be misconstrued as his being responsible for the building and operation of these capabilities.

 

Oh, if we want to talk the gradual spying of Americans we can go to the Bush era for that. Earlier, even. But thats definitely a focal point.

 

I 100000% agree. I was talking specifically about the warantless spying program under his administration. Like I said, "recent memory" and its fair to criticize that for being vague. Point was more about me finding it ridiculous that someone could think that about Trump when weve had a slew of admins beforehand that were worse. The most recent being Obamas.

 

Quote

2) a slightly more semantic issue, but one worth bringing to the fore given that I've spent the last 16 or so years either working or studying in international relations and strategic studies

 

Ill ignore this entire point because I dont disagree and..uhh...I know what the NSA does. I mean, I *know what they do*.  Ill leave it at that.

 

Quote

 I'm saying it's obviously fallacious to draw analogies between violence and looting emanating from rights protests and an attempted armed insurrection. Nor should it be construed as a moral judgement that one is contextually "acceptable".

 

The simple fact that both involved violence does not make them comparable.

 

Hey, thats fair. I can totally understand the stance. You dont justify violence, but you believe the cause of said violence is at least more just than the other. 

 

My issue is not with you, then. My issue is with people that try to rationalize the rioting and looting of the past 4 years or however long it was and dont see the hypocrisy on display now.

 

Chris "who said protests are supposed to be peaceful" Cuomo and his faux outrage now. 

 

Quote

"But what about X" tu quoques are not useful in objective analysis of events. Pointing out alleged hypocrisy doesn't constitute a meaningful rebuttal. 

 

The problem with this that rationalisation, apologism and encouragement or instigation are not the same thing. Rationalising something doesn't mean you agree with it, just that you understand the circumstances leading to it occurring. It's unreasonable and illogical to equate even being an apologist for violent actions- "well that's what happens when you deny the downtrodden a voice" etc- with inciting them.

 

rebuttal for what? I agree that what aboutism is useless in analyzing singular events and having debates about how appropriate or purposeful they are.

 

Im not having a debate and Im not rebutting anything. Youre confused, I dont disagree with anyone about this insurrection. Im merely calling about hypocrisy.

 

Im not having a debate. My issue is with the rationalization and double standard. I know the difference between calling for something and rationalizing it. And I think its bullsh*t that these same people dont apply their own thought process to these events.

 

Im not a hypocrite on this. I thought both movements were retarded. But I can decry violence without fear of hypocrisy weighing my conscious down.

 

Quote

The notion that Trump did not know he was speaking to a group of self identifying armed revolutionaries when he gave his speech is absolutely unconscionable. He will have been made aware through his Secret Service detail and through federal intelligence and law enforcement briefings that attendees of the rally had come armed and prepared to kidnap and inflict violence on elected representatives. This intent was publicly expressed by the individuals in question and supported by the actions of some once they breached the Capitol. To deliver the words he did, and call for the actions he did, in full knowledge of the facts above cannot possibly be interpreted as anything other than an incitement to violence.  Denying the confirmation would have required violent action, plain and simple, and calling on his followers to do so is therefore an incitement of that.

 

Not only did he do this, he also created an environment where the prospect of success was improved by specifically refusing to mobilise federal resources even after the Capitol had been overrun. 

 

 

I said this same thing in one sentence. Moving on.

 

Quote

thank you. We can go back and forth on studies that prove different aspects of our points but im still interested in looking stuff over.

 

Quote

I don't think it is questionable. It's a platform which permits hate speech and incitement of violence under the pretext of "free speech". It doesn't stop being a mouthpiece for hate just because people other than extremists also use it.

 

I actually wanted to bring up the point of Parler and how worrisome it is that an entire network can basically disappear off the agreement of three companies. 

 

Not a fan of power being that centralized. Not a fan of a "deplatform hate" movement, as well as the apps they use. 

 

I said I wanna bring it up but this quote train is so damn long Im all talked out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ddarko12 said:

This completely invalidates anything further you have to say. Talk about gatekeeping, I suggest you re-read your post just to see how stupid you sound. Christ. :kekw: I mean there's no doubt plenty of folks have experienced way worse than me. That doesn't make my experiences irrelevant. People who take this approach towards anything disgust me. It's gatekeeping, you should look it up.

  

 

Coming from the guy that said something along the lines of "you dont understand" is pretty funny. 

 

My entire point is the ridiculousness of using "well Im black" in an argument is. But I guess that just flew past you.

 

Quote

Well wtf are you then? Because if you're a minority and trying to act like this, that's even worse.

 

 

What? Like an uncle tom? How am I acting.

 

Quote

Because you've failed to provide any actual good arguments. And I threw that in there at the end, kind of knowing it would trigger you and make you go on a damn tangent, saying stuff like that always seems to enrage folks who argue like this for some odd reason. Really kind of shows what your real problem is.

 

"I was trolling haha"

 

Man this is some lazy ass debating. At least svicskfjf gives me stuff to work with. 

 

Forget it it really is a waste of time. 

 

I do wanna know how Im "acting" though. Please, tell me. How am I acting? I wanna know.

 

anyway, not a fan of whats up with Parler. Theyre hypocrites on free speech, but still

 

But Im also the guy that also wants stormfront to have a place so w.e

 

https://twitter.com/7jok3r7/status/1348388021637406725?s=20

Edited by E.A.B.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trip said:

Holy sh*t!

Wanna get a bit unnerved?  Maybe even a bit scared?

This is the video circulating on the right where it pretty much is a call to arms for Jan 20th.

Hosted on parler's domain.

 

https://video.parler.com/D2/fo/D2fovQB1v4M2_small.mp4?fbclid=IwAR1cVQ021r0vdGKAg5fOA7thw-Fuoa7XIzjnZL6YCwpDv33N7ugMkPMQo1A

I seen that video at youtube last night  and was shocked at the quality of it and content 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ABANDON SHIP

 

[img]https://i.ibb.co/7VrhXcC/Screenshot-20210111-100414-Robinhood.jpg[/img]

 

[img]https://ibb.co/ns9yh2Q[/img]

 

oh that doesnt work anymore

Edited by E.A.B.
Link to post
Share on other sites

@E.A.B.

 

Your tags are broken

 

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

Owe the PGA golf breaking all ties with trump are really going to hurt him financially  and mentally 

Edited by Craigsters
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Craigsters said:

@E.A.B.

 

Your tags are broken

Yeah, I know. insert image from url isnt working on phone. And the old [img][/img] tags dont work anymore either.

 

Its w.e

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Parler situation is very much a double-edged sword. On one hand businesses can and should be allowed to, within the bounds of legality, have complete autonomy to themselves decide who they want to deal with. This includes terminating relations / services when they see fit. Especially pertinent when they themselves get negative press because of a certain contractual partner. On the other hand, by for all intents and purposes erasing a platform that had quickly become a platform for all kinds of extremism you don’t magically get rid of said extremism, all you do is relegate it to darker corners of the internet, like for instance these private Telegram groups that have started popping up as a refuge for Parler users. Problem with this is that it makes it increasingly more difficult to police, and consequently more dangerous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aww, there you go. Now the fake machinery targeting the gullible is running after the theft of Pelosi’s laptop.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I saw the tweet they banned Trump over. They made hay over him saying he wont attend the inauguration, reading into the statement.

 

Ridiculous. Madonna called for blowing up the white house and Johnny Depp asked about assassinating a sitting President. 

 

And I dont think they should even be banned over that. Johnny was joking, but if I were a right wing Twitter mod I could make up some case about "the current atmosphere and climate" and use context repeatedly as if it can hide my motives.

 

Point is it was dumb. Twitter lost 4 billion today cause of it

Edited by E.A.B.
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, E.A.B. said:

Yeah, I know. insert image from url isnt working on phone. And the old [img][/img] tags dont work anymore either.

 

Its w.e

 

Just use a hosting app...Gyazo is what i use it takes a sec to upload it and get the link

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, E.A.B. said:

 

 

Twitter is a private company. You don’t have any “right” to use their platform, let alone spout whatever you want on it. If Twitter wants to ban you, that is their prerogative. I don’t care if you’re the President, the Pope or God in person. There is no such thing as a “fundamental right to free speech” online.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Raavi said:

 

Twitter is a private company. You don’t have any “right” to use their platform, let alone spout whatever you want on it. If Twitter wants to ban you, that is their prerogative. I don’t care if you’re the President, the Pope or God in person. There is no such thing as a “fundamental right to free speech” online.

Forgetting about Trump for a second...given all speech is moving in that direction as the world becomes more online we are affectively talking about all speech...are we saying private companies control free speech now?

 

What if it was a reversal and they liked trump and refused to remove his posts and instead removed BLM posts?

Would you accept it because they’re a private company not beholden to any agreement to uphold law?

 

I don’t like a lot of things on Twitter but whataboutism runs rampant if they aren’t consistent.

 

Personally I have been offended by AOCs tweets multiple times but she is a voice that I wouldn’t silence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Someone made a claim about Trump and our proximity to Fascism. I responded. If you believe it adds nothing to the conversation either take it out on the original poster or just ignore it whatsoever. 

I'm not "taking it out" on anyone, including you. 

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I know its vague, and the point was merely that Trump is not the closest to Fascism that we have gotten as recently as 1 administration ago. 

The problem is that the only evidence you've presented to support this assertion- the monitoring of journalists and the global surveillance disclosures- don't actually support the premise, largely because they're activities that predate Obama and have continued unabated since. 

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Man, you need a US crash course. FDR literally threatened a branch of government because he couldn't have his way. He threatened the Supreme Court into getting his way. And he got his way.

Nice tu quoque, but I don't see what it has to do with my point.

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I don't mean this as a snide remark but you need to actually provide examples or evidence past just making a claim.

Vis-a-vis personal liberty;

Human Freedom Index 2016. United States achieved a personal freedom score of 8.79 and an overall ranking of 28/159

Human Freedom Index 2020. United States achieved a personal freedom score of 8.66 and an overall ranking of 29/162

Core areas of decline being in "rule of law" and "religious freedom". 

 

Political liberty; since 2016 the US has been downgraded by the EIU Democracy Index from a "full democracy" to a "flawed democracy"- in 2019 it received a rating of 7.96 and dropped from 21st in 2016 to 25th, with particularly poor performance in "political culture" and "function of government", and the largest single decline in "civil liberties".

 

"Shadow Government" comments were specifically referring to changes under EO13957 which is specifically designed to undermine the nonpartisan professional nature of vast swathes of the US civil service and embed Trump loyalists in newly designated "apolitical" positions.

 

Nepotism and cronyism are self-evident, numerous senior positions given not to entitled political chums who at least understood how the machinery worked or had a degree of qualification, but to his children who sorely lacked any basic subject matter expertise. Then there was his wave of pardons which- aside from a bunch of mercenaries who literally massacred Iraqi civilians- prominently included people convicted of conducting criminal actions at his direct behest. I appreciate that most administrations engage in a degree of nepotism and cronyism but that exhibited by Trump stretches far beyond what's typically observed. 

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

But come on. Trump was the first to striate society on "us vs them" 

Except I never made the claim that Trump was "first" to do this; it's an obvious straw man. What Trump has done, however, is been instrumental in deepening this divide and accentuating political and social sectarianism. Political polarisation has increased enormously since 2016 and the circumstances of the 6th January are a direct result of his rhetoric and approach to governance. Ironically, only now do we see him calling for "peaceful transitions" and his supporters begging the democrats to "heal a nation".

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Point was more about me finding it ridiculous that someone could think that about Trump when weve had a slew of admins beforehand that were worse.

I think you would be hard pushed to make any kind of coherent evidence-based assertion that he was more authoritarian (a key requirement of fascism) especially given that external measures of personal and political freedom have shown both have declined in the US since Obama. Add to that trying to overturn legally cast ballots, urging state leaders to overrule the will of the people; attempting to establish pet judiciaries (which thankfully appears to have failed) and so on. When it comes to the other key characteristics of fascism- I mean neither is really close to dictatorial power in objective terms but I would say Trump definitely has a far lower orbit here, especially given the actions since his electoral defeat. Ultranationalism? I wouldn't even describe Obama as an ordinary nationalist as he's far more of a globalist; Trump however is a firm believer in American cultural and ideological supremacy, promotion of autarky and protectionism, et cetera.

 

What other core characteristics of fascism do you believe Obama exhibits to a greater degree than Trump?

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Ill ignore this entire point because I dont disagree and..uhh...I know what the NSA does

If you don't disagree, then why use loaded- and flat-out incorrect- language to summarise the activities in question? 

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

My issue is not with you, then. My issue is with people that try to rationalize the rioting and looting of the past 4 years or however long it was and dont see the hypocrisy on display now.

Not to labour my earlier point, but I still think this is false equivalence. I don't agree with Chris Cuomo's comments but claiming they're comparable to Giuliani's "trial by combat" statements, or Trump telling what was in effect a heavily armed militia to "go wild" in his name, or Steve Bannon calling for Trump's political opponents to be "hung, drawn and quartered" takes some serious mental gymnastics. And these aren't ineffectual CNN hacks, they're senior US political figures with loyal followings.

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

Im not having a debate and Im not rebutting anything. Youre confused, I dont disagree with anyone about this insurrection. Im merely calling about hypocrisy.

So you don't really want to contribute to the discussion, you're just here for the whataboutism? Gotcha.

 

6 hours ago, E.A.B. said:

I actually wanted to bring up the point of Parler and how worrisome it is that an entire network can basically disappear off the agreement of three companies. 

I agree in part, but more from the perspective that from the perspective of basic resilience it's not sensible to have corporate control of media or other aspects of critical infrastructure reliant on so few single points of failure. My only concern with deplatforming neo-Nazis is that forcing them underground makes them harder to infiltrate and track.

 

3 hours ago, Halal Cyborg said:

are we saying private companies control free speech now?

No, what's being said is that people have no inalienable right to free speech on platforms hosted by private companies. 

 

3 hours ago, Halal Cyborg said:

What if it was a reversal and they liked trump and refused to remove his posts and instead removed BLM posts?

Would you accept it because they’re a private company not beholden to any agreement to uphold law?

The irony of addressing whataboutism with a whatabousim.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

if that’s what you’re taking from my post you clearly missed the point.

 

Happy for anyone actually able to grasp the point to answer.

 

If I wanted the pleasure of talking exclusively to you I would send you a pm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Halal Cyborg said:

What if it was a reversal and they liked trump and refused to remove his posts and instead removed BLM posts?

Would you accept it because they’re a private company not beholden to any agreement to uphold law?

 

 

As said, for all I care they ban the Pope. My position that you have no right to using / remaining on a platform owned by a private company applies irrespective of who you or what you are. If you don’t agree with how they moderate their platform, then it is your prerogative to find a different platform whom’s content moderation you do agree with. What I reject is this notion that using twitter/facebook is some kind of fundamental right. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raavi said:

 

As said, for all I care they ban the Pope. My position that you have no right to using / remaining on a platform owned by a private company applies irrespective of who you or what you are. If you don’t agree with how they moderate their platform, then it is your prerogative to find a different platform whom’s content moderation you do agree with. What I reject is this notion that using twitter/facebook is some kind of fundamental right. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be. 

 

 

 

 

I agree in part but what if all speech becomes controlled by limited companies?

 

It is heading that way I would say

 

Also having access to the internet is now considered a human right...so its a step closer given its impossible to utilise this human right without utilising private companies so there is a blurring of the two.

Edited by Halal Cyborg
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Halal Cyborg said:

I agree in part but what if all speech becomes controlled by limited companies?

 

It is heading that way I would say

 

People choose to use Twitter or x company’s platform, people choose to share pictures of their meals or beach vacations because #blessed #hashtag. People can also choose to stop using these platform and/or take their “contributions” elsewhere. If Twitter starts rapidly losing users then before long there is no Twitter left, because Twitter will stop making money. That’s the beauty of private enterprise. The statist approach would be to regulate them out of business. But that’s not my cuppa. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.