Free Speech

[Famine]

I am absolutely okay with that being legal. I would rather pieces of 💩 let me know up front that they are pieces of 💩.

As W said, but about terrorists instead of racists, "if you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist."

I'd prefer to know my money isn't going to racists who would then use it for more racism or funding more racists.

 

[TexRex]

However, if a business were to put a sign like that and they failed because no one wanted to buy something from a bigoted store, then it would be a major case of sucks to be that business owner.

Edit:

 

[R3V]

If you attend the rose parade (or similar type of televised parade), you will inevitably see people right behind the parade doing exactly what you describe. Parading down the street with their disgusting signs. So I'm not questioning whether it is legal.

And no, I would not change the legality of it. Protesting (whatever your cause) on public property is your right. It is your right precisely because the property is public. What this has to do with twitter, which is not owned by any government entity, is quite beyond me.

Because Twitter is* just that, but on a screen. If you want to avoid such cesspool and be in a safe space, stick to smaller book club like websites such as this one.


*Or was. They've been changing it with a super slippery slope.

People are still displaying signs like these? It's not exactly a selling point for your business to advertise that you're a racist.

The trouble with blanket legislation of the kind you're describing is that it can sometimes hurt people instead of help them.

UK supreme court backs housing charity's 'Jewish only' rule

Ruling cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage

www.theguardian.com

It's disappointingly still legal based on what these guys are saying but at least they're consistent. I thought denial of service based on race/ethnicity/etc is illegal. I think it should be. Wedding cake is trivial but sometone like a cab driver or an uber, no. If you're not professional enough to sell your prodct or service to anyone you're not a professional and shouldn't be doing business.

Charity and business-to-business doesn't apply to this.

If you set the limit to say 10 million users, all a platform has to do to circumvent your controls is set a cap on membership to 1 below that, ditto if you set it on any value. It arbitrary and unworkable.

They wouldn't want to limit their growth or profit. Also making censorship illegal gives them cover from the mob going after them every time they want to cancel someone.

Popularity does not equal essential.

This wasn't the only argument you know. Whether any of us likes it or not, people are using them and will be influenced by silicone valley deem true or safe. No one should have this kind of power. Not the government or any corporation.

None of them are the government, and you can't even define the level at which they should be treated as if they are government bodies (and they shouldn't).

Not government bodies. They're free to operate completely independently, as long as they don't censor or ban account based on speech that would be lawful in public.

It's not a public square however, it's a private entity and location on the internet, so your analogy doesn't pass muster.

Once again I'm not arguing how things exist today, I'm arguing what they should be seen as. This is how I'd apply the restrictions on them (in terms of speech). I'm explaining to you in detail how a court room ought to decide a case where someone challenges Twitter.

The far-right supporters of people who carry out those actions, and yes a large enough number of them do exist.

It's besides the point but I'd love to see a group of people pooling up cash to defend the right of a terrorist publishing his crime on Twitch. I really would love to know who these people are by name. So would every counter terrorism agency.

You didn't answer how such footage would be protected, by the way. Would it be okay to display it on a TV in public? Legally speaking, with current laws in the west.

I'm not sure on their legality and it's probably going to differ in different areas, but I don't think they should be illegal at all. This is coming from someone who's Jew-ish too. However, if a business were to put a sign like that and they failed because no one wanted to buy something from a bigoted store, then it would be a major case of sucks to be that business owner.

I am absolutely okay with that being legal. I would rather pieces of 💩 let me know up front that they are pieces of 💩.

I'm not. At least with some businesses it should not be legal. Maybe join me in opening up social media. They'll expose themselves there if they know they won't be censored. Now we don't know who they are and mistake attention seeking "edgy teenage gamers" for actual racists.

 

[Danoff]

Because Twitter is* just that, but on a screen. If you want to avoid such cesspool and be in a safe space, stick to smaller book club like websites such as this one.

"Just that" is government property. Explain to me how twitter is government property.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not. At least with some businesses it should not be legal. Maybe join me in opening up social media. They'll expose themselves there if they know they won't be censored. Now we don't know who they are and mistake attention seeking "edgy teenage gamers" for actual racists.

Except a bunch of businesses don't have social media. I know you seem to think a business can't operate without social media, but that's completely false.

Still, what's the difference between a random bakery putting up a sign that says certain people can or can't visit it and a social media site, which is a private company, saying the same thing? If enough people are upset that Twitter doesn't allow racist and bigoted jackasses, they'll go somewhere else.

 

[R3V]

"Just that" is government property. Explain to me how twitter is government property.

It's a sidewalk. It was promised to be no different from a public side walk. It got popular and influential because of that. Now they need to surrender that influence because it's not going away any other way.

I know you seem to think a business can't operate without social media, but that's completely false.

I may have hinted at that last week or whenever it was. No I don't think it's essential to every business. Just most of them.

If enough people are upset that Twitter doesn't allow racist and bigoted jackasses, they'll go somewhere else.

This is what you and the others are failing to see or accept. No one's going anywhere else. That's not how that industry works. Who's using bing? Even perverts are using duckduckgo now. Once you're "established" in the way Twitter, Google and Facebook are, it's over. Even Google couldn't out-twitter twitter with google plus or whatever that was. There's an invisible critical mass somewhere along the percentage of population using an internet platform. Myspace didn't get there and died before it could. The others did. It's too late.

 

[Scaff]

They wouldn't want to limit their growth or profit.

Plenty of ways around that, you've clearly not given this the consideration you claim to have.

Also making censorship illegal gives them cover from the mob going after them every time they want to cancel someone.

No it doesn't, it forces government control on the.

Do you think anyone should be able to say and do what they want here at GTP and the site owner not be able to control that? After all GTP is easily the largest social media site in the sim racing community?

This wasn't the only argument you know. Whether any of us likes it or not, people are using them and will be influenced by silicone valley deem true or safe. No one should have this kind of power. Not the government or any corporation.

Legal protection exists already, what you are proposing is unworkable in the US, let alone on a global scale. Let's not forget you said that US law had to be used and then forced on any other country, or that country should then ban the social medua outlet! Your claim that this would solve censorship is do far off the mark is Untrue, as it would literally given countries outside the US of surrendering its own laws or censoring its population.

Not government bodies. They're free to operate completely independently, as long as they don't censor or ban account based on speech that would be lawful in public.

Except they wouldn't be independent, they would be subject to government oversight and control for all content. Quire literally no longer independent.

Once again I'm not arguing how things exist today, I'm arguing what they should be seen as. This is how I'd apply the restrictions on them (in terms of speech). I'm explaining to you in detail how a court room ought to decide a case where someone challenges Twitter.

And its been detailed in this thread why that will not work.

It's besides the point but I'd love to see a group of people pooling up cash to defend the right of a terrorist publishing his crime on Twitch. I really would love to know who these people are by name. So would every counter terrorism agency.

How on earth do you think they caught a large number of those involved in the 6th Jan attacks?

That aside defending the rights of criminals doesn't make you a criminal, thinking it dies is an authoritarian trait.

You didn't answer how such footage would be protected, by the way. Would it be okay to display it on a TV in public? Legally speaking, with current laws in the west.

Then you still don't understand how the 1st works, which of the non protected categories does it fall under and why?

Oh, and with a discretion warning, yes it could be shown in the US on TV, and has been. Most outlets chose not to, your proposal would remove that option.

 

[Joey D]

I may have hinted at that last week or whenever it was. No I don't think it's essential to every business. Just most of them.

That's still not even remotely correct. No business needs a social media presence and I would wager most small businesses operate without one.

That's not how that industry works.

It's exactly how it works. People left Twitter and went over to Parler and whatever Trump's new dumpster fire of a social media platform is when they didn't agree with Twitter's moderation practices. When Trump was banned from everything for attempting to overthrow the US government, he resorted to mailing lists, which seems to have worked just fine.

 

[Scaff]

No one's going anywhere else

Telegram says your wrong, as do a multitude of others.

What you also fail to understand is your argument not only stops the sites from removing speech, but it also stops users from doing so. Right now if anyone posts racist crud on one of my YouTube videos I just delete it, under your new rules I can't do that.

Another consiqences of your idea would be that government would have to be given access to all PM and messaging areas of social media as well, without it they works not be able to check they are not being censored. Congrats your idea is getting more authoritarian by the minute

 

[Brett]

I'm not. At least with some businesses it should not be legal. Maybe join me in opening up social media. They'll expose themselves there if they know they won't be censored. Now we don't know who they are and mistake attention seeking "edgy teenage gamers" for actual racists.

Uncensored social media is not needed for those business to expose themselves. Forums, reviews, Reddit, etc will do just that for them. All it takes is a quick search to find out if a business is good to go. Uncensored social media could make it easier to find that information, but it would also make for a worse experience because a small portion of the users would ruin it.

This is what you and the others are failing to see or accept. No one's going anywhere else. That's not how that industry works. Who's using bing? Even perverts are using duckduckgo now. Once you're "established" in the way Twitter, Google and Facebook are, it's over. Even Google couldn't out-twitter twitter with google plus or whatever that was. There's an invisible critical mass somewhere along the percentage of population using an internet platform. Myspace didn't get there and died before it could. The others did. It's too late.

Except people do go elsewhere. The elsewhere is places of the internet where few frequent because the content is degeneracy and few people want to be part of degeneracy.

 

[Danoff]

It's a sidewalk.

Minus the super important part, which is government ownership.

It was promised to be no different from a public side walk.

No it was not. And certainly not contractually.

It got popular and influential because of that.

Also no.

Now they need to surrender that influence because it's not going away any other way.

...and this does not follow anyway, and is also incorrect.

None of that established how twitter is government owned.

 

[McLaren]

A sidewalk operates just like social media. You can run into people screming the N word at you any day of the week. It would be fully legal and no police officer would be able to legally arrest them.

You can be arrested because saying that word can lead to other issues in a public area.

The officer interviewed Ng again at his residence on Saturday evening and asked Ng if he understood how his comments could provoke a fight. The reports says Ng said he didn't think his comments were inflammatory and believed Abram was "mapping the place" and part of a "recon team."

"I asked if Paul understood how there could be fallback from the comments and Paul stated that he understood but did not see why there was so much energy wasted on the incident," the report stated. "Paul was certain that the incident would be gone and forgotten within a week."

The officer then arrested Ng and booked him on two counts of disorderly conduct — both misdemeanors.

Viral video shows Scottsdale man telling Black man he's in a 'no (N-word) zone'

A Scottsdale man was arrested Saturday after a viral video showed him telling a Black man that he was in a "no (N-word) zone."

www.azcentral.com

Maybe join me in opening up social media. They'll expose themselves there if they know they won't be censored. Now we don't know who they are and mistake attention seeking "edgy teenage gamers" for actual racists.

They already expose themselves plenty, as @TexRex picture above proves. They don't need to say outright, heinous things to do so.

No one's going anywhere else. That's not how that industry works.

But, they absolutely do go elsewhere.
Telegram:

Gab:

Parler when it opened up had a bunch of stuff like this & this isn't even the worst of what these sites have allowed.

 

[Tornado]

1) I'm aware the US 1st amendment is currently interpreted as protection from government censorship on public land.
2) I want to change #1 to include social media companies large enough (as mentioned above). Also want to integrate it into labor laws but this isn't the discussion.

If you paused from this "conversation" where you try to insist out of thin air that social media companies need to be regulated like utility companies because they are "essential" you'd see the parallel discussion in this thread about how what you're arguing for is literally exactly what the far right wants and keeps attempting to pass as legislation after a bunch of prominent Republicans were booted from Twitter for attempting to overthrow the US government and/or spreading lies about COVID. You've repeatedly described not only the claimed aim of the Texas law, but you've repeatedly gone out of your way to describe a way that it could be enforced:

They can remove what they like anyway, but if challenged in court and the judge deemed it in violation, it should be reinstated with the censored person getting some form of compensation. This is similar to police arresting someone for speech. They do it, get sued, public pays for a settlement. If the arrest/censorship was legal, then there's nothing to worry about.

That is identical to how the Texas law is designed to work.






So no, I don't want the federal government to set up some sort of arbitrary level at which they are allowed to force social media to be regulated to force all speech using nonsense justification 6 months before 2/3rds of the government is almost sure to be completely controlled by GOP assholes who will use such regulation specifically to punish those companies for daring to try and stop them from spreading lies about COVID or overthrowing the US government; but I'm damn sure when that happens in 6 months they are going to try just like they have in Florida and Texas and have been threatening to do federally since before Biden was even sworn into office. Why should I be? Because of tortured analogies about how cell phones are the same thing?

This is what you and the others are failing to see or accept. No one's going anywhere else. That's not how that industry works.

I'm sure Tumblr cries itself to sleep every night wishing that were true.








Do you think the Texas law, the thing that you basically keep describing as something that needs to exist federally, is a good thing?

 

[Blitz24]

Do you think the Texas law, the thing that you basically keep describing as something that needs to exist federally, is a good thing?

I have yet to see anyone make an argument that could even remotely make the Texas law look like a good thing.

 

[Imari]

Because Twitter is* just that, but on a screen. If you want to avoid such cesspool and be in a safe space, stick to smaller book club like websites such as this one.

If this is really what you want, why are you not advocating for the government buying Twitter and turning it into a true public service?

 

[R3V]

Do you think anyone should be able to say and do what they want here at GTP and the site owner not be able to control that? After all GTP is easily the largest social media site in the sim racing community?

I don't know how many times I have to answer this. No. This is a message board. It's not even a news aggregate open community type of thing like Reddit (which yes I include with Twitter and the rest).

they would be subject to government oversight and control for all content

Where have I said that? No one's auditing anything. If an individual feels like he's being censored, he goes to court to settle it. I've not once proposed that the government can initiate any control. Only the users can, and for their own accounts.

That aside defending the rights of criminals doesn't make you a criminal, thinking it dies is an authoritarian trait.

Don't know where this insinuation came from. Of course they can be defended. I don't even think they should lose the right to vote while in prison. That shouldn't stop them from being on a list somewhere. It's one thing to say violent things, but to put your money where your mouth is and donate to a terrorist who filmed himself shooting innocent people..? List.

Then you still don't understand how the 1st works, which of the non protected categories does it fall under and why?

Oh, and with a discretion warning, yes it could be shown in the US on TV, and has been. Most outlets chose not to, your proposal would remove that option.

There's no discretion warning in public. I'm not aware of a precedent with violent imagery but with porn there's the miller test. Not hard to stretch that to videos of an actual murder spree. Do you really think it's okay for you or your children to walk down a public street and see gore displayed on a giant screen?

No business needs a social media presence and I would wager most small businesses operate without one.

Boy would I love to get into that. Another thread, another day. I'll remember.

Telegram says your wrong, as do a multitude of others.

What exactly about telegram? Have I missed something? They died off, came back and still not as strong as WhatsApp.

What you also fail to understand is your argument not only stops the sites from removing speech, but it also stops users from doing so. Right now if anyone posts racist crud on one of my YouTube videos I just delete it, under your new rules I can't do that.

It wouldn't be the site removing speech, it's you. Even then, I don't see this as a big deal. Users, including yourself, can have filters that hide comments people flag as nasty.

but it would also make for a worse experience because a small portion of the users would ruin it.

A small portion of humans ruin the world for the rest. At least online you can filter content with warnings.

You can be arrested because saying that word can lead to other issues in a public area.

The keyword is LEGALLY arrested. I'm 100% those charges would be dismissed if the guy decides to fight them. Police violate people's 1A rights all the time with false arrests. "Interference" and "disorderly conduct" are the common excuses.

But, they absolutely do go elsewhere

Yeah where it's an echo chamber with zero influence and no one to rebut. I wasn't saying they're going to disappear from the face of the earth.

what you're arguing for is literally exactly what the far right wants

They only want to do that now because dems succeeded at pressuring social media companies to censor the right (and pro-worker left). Democrats wanted control Twitter and others for years. Neither US parties have any interest in the good of the people.

That is identical to how the Texas law is designed to work.






So no, I don't want the federal government to set up some sort of arbitrary level at which they are allowed to force social media to be regulated to force all speech using nonsense justification 6 months before 2/3rds of the government is almost sure to be completely controlled by GOP assholes who will use such regulation specifically to punish those companies for daring to try and stop them from spreading lies about COVID or overthrowing the US government; but I'm damn sure when that happens in 6 months they are going to try just like they have in Florida and Texas and have been threatening to do federally since before Biden was even sworn into office. Why should I be? Because of tortured analogies about how cell phones are the same thing?

I'm not sure how that Texas law works, but as I've said 100 times, the court room would only be involved if the censored user decides to sue to uncensor himself/herself.

I'm sure Tumblr cries itself to sleep every night wishing that were true.

Shouldn't have banned porn.

If this is really what you want, why are you not advocating for the government buying Twitter and turning it into a true public service?

Compartmentalizing the data, mostly. The same with phone companies. With energy and healthcare on the otherhand, 100% in favor of nationalizing them. Even if they could theoretically have access to medical records.

Not that it makes a difference but at least that's how it should work. Spy agencies around the world, private entities and even some citizens now have digital surveillance suites that gives them access to whatever data they need

 

[Scaff]

I don't know how many times I have to answer this. No. This is a message board. It's not even a news aggregate open community type of thing like Reddit (which yes I include with Twitter and the rest).

It's a social media platform in which users contribute the majority of the content. So no difference at all.

Where have I said that? No one's auditing anything. If an individual feels like he's being censored, he goes to court to settle it. I've not once proposed that the government can initiate any control. Only the users can, and for their own accounts

Then it wouldn't be enforceable, what your suggesting would most certainly require that to work.

Don't know where this insinuation came from. Of course they can be defended. I don't even think they should lose the right to vote while in prison. That shouldn't stop them from being on a list somewhere. It's one thing to say violent things, but to put your money where your mouth is and donate to a terrorist who filmed himself shooting innocent people..? List.

The insinuation came from you.

There's no discretion warning in public. I'm not aware of a precedent with violent imagery but with porn there's the miller test. Not hard to stretch that to videos of an actual murder spree. Do you really think it's okay for you or your children to walk down a public street and see gore displayed on a giant screen?

Yes their is, on public broadcast TV, but your goalposts are shifting constantly.

What exactly about telegram? Have I missed something? They died off, came back and still not as strong as WhatsApp.

It's a platform that many have moved to, despite you claiming no-one had.

It wouldn't be the site removing speech, it's you. Even then, I don't see this as a big deal. Users, including yourself, can have filters that hide comments people flag as nasty

Under the 1st amendment I't most certainly wouldn't work like that at all, it's not selective, it would apply to all content.

Once again you've not thought this out at all.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not sure how that Texas law works

but as I've said 100 times, the court room would only be involved if the censored user decides to sue to uncensor himself/herself.

As I've said now three times and other people have also told you and as the continuing multipage discussion about the Texas law was happening in this same thread thread in between you arguing that posting pictures of cats on Twitter is an essential service akin to a public utility like water/electricity/water, that is how the Texas law works. You even responded to someone talking about it for no other reason than to mock them talking about it:

Oh no! The poor corporation has to defend itself in court? Why even have laws anyway? Let's do without them to save everyone the hassle. Not like there's such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit anyway.

So, again, without your attempts to change the subject or claim ignorance or move the goalposts or selectively quote responses so you can argue with strawmen: Do you think the Texas law, the thing that you basically keep describing as something that needs to exist federally, is a good thing?

 

[R3V]

Then it wouldn't be enforceable, what your suggesting would most certainly require that to work.

Please elaborate.

Person tweets N word.
Twitter bans and removes account of person.
Person goes to court and demands recourse.
Mutual documents between both parties are presented to court.

Where does oversight or access to everyone's data come in? What am I missing?

Yes their is, on public broadcast TV,

There's what? Legal precedent? TV is not a public sidewalk. FCC have regulations but that as nothing to do with what you say or display on public land.

your goalposts are shifting constantly.

No. I don't think displaying violence or gore should be protected on public property, therefore not protected on Twitter. No goal posts are moved.

It's a platform that many have moved to, despite you claiming no-one had.

Have they changed the way they operate? Is it not a DM service like whatsapp? Also I just checked and they have 1/4 the userbase of whatsapp.

I plead complete ignorance of what telegram has become in terms of the type of service they offer.

Under the 1st amendment I't most certainly wouldn't work like that at all, it's not selective, it would apply to all content.

It's very selective. Not all speech is protected.

So, again, without your attempts to change the subject or claim ignorance or move the goalposts or selectively quote responses so you can argue with strawmen: Do you think the Texas law, the thing that you basically keep describing as something that needs to exist federally, is a good thing?

This seems to be a new thing. I don't know anything about it other than the screenshot posted. TexRex's objection is that Twitter would have to defend itself from getting sued by getting banned. This is a BS objection. People and companies get sued for all kinds of things all the time. Courts can deem them frivolous if they are. If we're to remove that we may as well remove the existence of a court room.

I'll have a read tomorrow and see if it matches what I'm proposing.

 

[Danoff]

TV is not a public sidewalk

Twitter is not a public sidewalk.

 

[R3V]

Twitter is not a public sidewalk.

Which is why they can choose to censor porn/violence or allow it. I'm proposing to allow things that are allowed in public, not force them allow what's disallowed.

 

[Danoff]

Which is why they can choose to censor porn/violence or allow it. I'm proposing to allow things that are allowed in public, not force them allow what's disallowed.

They can choose to censor porn/violence or allow it because they're not owned by the government. You're talking about someone's property.

 

[Blitz24]

If Twitter was government owned, this would make sense. Except it's not government owned and it is a private company. If you tweet something that can be described as hate speech, you can be banned for it.

 

[McLaren]

I don't know how many times I have to answer this. No. This is a message board. It's not even a news aggregate open community type of thing like Reddit (which yes I include with Twitter and the rest).

You include Reddit with Twitter?

The site where a running joke is that the subreddit /Conservative, the champions of free speech, actively ban anyone with dissenting opinions for no reason & set half their threads to "Flaired Only" (Verified) users only?

The keyword is LEGALLY arrested. I'm 100% those charges would be dismissed if the guy decides to fight them. Police violate people's 1A rights all the time with false arrests. "Interference" and "disorderly conduct" are the common excuses.

An Ohio appeals court upheld the ethnic-intimidation and disorderly conduct convictions of a Columbus, Ohio, man who uttered the “n-word” repeatedly at a neighbor. The court also rejected First Amendment challenges to both ordinances.

Ohio appeals court finds ‘n-word’ equals fighting words

An Ohio appeals court upheld the ethnic-intimidation and disorderly conduct convictions of a Columbus, Ohio, man who uttered the “n-word” repeatedly at a neighbor. The court also rejected First Amendment challenges to both ordinances.

mtsu.edu

I'm 100% you talk absolutely bull****.

Yeah where it's an echo chamber with zero influence and no one to rebut. I wasn't saying they're going to disappear from the face of the earth.

Recap:

If enough people are upset that Twitter doesn't allow racist and bigoted jackasses, they'll go somewhere else.

This is what you and the others are failing to see or accept. No one's going anywhere else. That's not how that industry works.

What I posted proves Joey's point you challenged.

They only want to do that now because dems succeeded at pressuring social media companies to censor the right (and pro-worker left). Democrats wanted control Twitter and others for years. Neither US parties have any interest in the good of the people.

Some good ol' enlightened centrism....

 

[R3V]

You include Reddit with Twitter?

The site where a running joke is that the subreddit /Conservative, the champions of free speech, actively ban anyone with dissenting opinions for no reason & set half their threads to "Flaired Only" (Verified) users only?

Yeah that's a subreddit not the whole website. It also got banned, I think? Reddit was pretty open until the guy who founded the website gave up.

I'm 100% you talk absolutely bull****.

We'll see what the supreme court says about it. Also fighting words: "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"

I'm confident they'll find that utterance of a single word would not inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. The proof is in the video, as it did not breach the peace at all...

What I posted proves Joey's point you challenged.

Taking words literally? Really, man? The whole point is about Twitter's influence. Remove the 1% extremists and let them go on 4chan. Does that remove Twitter's influence? The bulk of the population aren't switching over. Of Trump's millions of followers, how many followed him to his BS social media platform? What's the retention rate?

Some good ol' enlightened centrism....

I don't want to misinterpret wha you said so I'll ask, you're saying I'm a centrist? Because I'm far from one.

 

[UKMikey]

They only want to do that now because dems succeeded at pressuring social media companies to censor the right (and pro-worker left). Democrats wanted control Twitter and others for years. Neither US parties have any interest in the good of the people.

Most people who believe social media is overwhelmingly biased against conservative views are on one side of the political spectrum.

The legislation which prevents social media platforms from being held accountable for their content was introduced by a Democrat and a Republican though.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Biden has gone on record saying it should be immediately revoked and yet it's still here. Perhaps his minders and advisors have prevented him from carrying out his pre-election threat.

 

[McLaren]

Yeah that's a subreddit not the whole website. It also got banned, I think? Reddit was pretty open until the guy who founded the website gave up.

Newsflash: all the subreddits have the ability to operate in that fashion & many of them do. And /Conservative has never been banned.

Subreddits also do not get banned/Quarantined unless something happens in the subreddit that attracts outside attention from the media to which, then Reddit wipes the sub to get rid of it. So yeah, Reddit is still very open....

We'll see what the supreme court says about it. Also fighting words: "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"

I'm confident they'll find that utterance of a single word would not inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. The proof is in the video, as it did not breach the peace at all...

The cops are wrong. The court is wrong.

Coming soon: Well, SCOTUS is wrong.

You're clearly missing the issue of why saying certain words in public will get you in trouble.

I don't want to misinterpret wha you said so I'll ask, you're saying I'm a centrist? Because I'm far from one.

"Both sides bad" nonsense.

 

[UKMikey]

Newsflash: all the subreddits have the ability to operate in that fashion & many of them do. And /Conservative has never been banned.

He may be thinking of r/The_Donald which was banned for violating Reddit's rules on harassment and targetting, not simply for being a right-wing subreddit (of which there are still plenty on reddit).

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20220406...2020/06/29/technology/reddit-hate-speech.html

 

[McLaren]

He may be thinking of r/The_Donald which was banned for violating Reddit's rules on harassment and targetting, not for being a right-wing cesspit (of which there are still plenty on reddit).

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/technology/reddit-hate-speech.html

True. Unfortunately, it's pretty much back since those members (rightfully expected) used /AskTheDonald and decided to just turn it into the next iteration.

 

[UKMikey]

True. Unfortunately, it's pretty much back since those members (rightfully expected) used /AskTheDonald and decided to just turn it into the next iteration.

While unfortunate this backs up your point and makes it even less likely that subreddits are being banned for political content as @R3V alleges. Perhaps the moderation staff of Reddit are all outliers as well.