Tila Tequila's Twitter Account Suspended After 'Sieg Hail Salute' - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Bladewire · 11-23-2016, 02:51 PM

[QUOTE=nico-t;21326008]Please point out anyone defending skinheads and nazis, thanks

You are defending the Kremlin, Putin, Skinheads & Nazis. And you post hate about Americans here everyday without fail.

I've met many Dutch in my life, never met an uncool Dutch, you are the first, then again we've never met in person.

woj · 11-23-2016, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

There is a difference here. If Google decided to block Chrome users from accessing certain sites that they don't agree with, that is censorship. However, that is different than what is happening because the people making those sites are not using Google to broadcast their hate speech. The website(s) in question likely have no affiliation with Google whereas when someone posts some racist stuff on Twitter, Twitter itself is now affiliated with it since they facilitated that post.

My position is very simple. People are free to say whatever they want, however, companies are not required to facilitate that free speech if they so choose.

"facilitate" is a bit ambiguous... is using a web browser to post on gfy comments that some might find offensive "facilitating"? I would think so, without a web browser, I would be unable to do so [as easily...]...

so by that logic, there would be nothing at all wrong if browsers tried to stop me from posting offensive comments? "you are about to post comments that some might find offensive, we are sorry but firefox is a 'safe space compliant' browser, we can't let you do that!"... such a feature would be completely ok in your book?

brassmonkey · 11-23-2016, 03:00 PM

[QUOTE=Bladewire;21326113]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

Please point out anyone defending skinheads and nazis, thanks

You are defending the Kremlin, Putin, Skinheads & Nazis. And you post hate about Americans here everyday without fail.

I've met many Dutch in my life, never met an uncool Dutch, you are the first, then again we've never met in person.

you should see how many years he has stalked me. the guys is loons

Bladewire · 11-23-2016, 03:02 PM

[QUOTE=brassmonkey;21326137]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

you should see how many years he has stalked me. the guys is loons

Oh he's one of those? Thanks for the heads up now I know his type

nico-t · 11-23-2016, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Oh he's one of those? Thanks for the heads up now I know his type

my god, once you start taking brasshat seriously you're really lost

the guy reported me probably a 1000 times to Eric, to the point that Eric just ignored all his crying

Bladewire · 11-23-2016, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

my god, once you start taking brasshat seriously you're really lost

the guy reported me probably a 1000 times to Eric, to the point that Eric just ignored all his crying

You're an old Dutch man living in the Netherlands why would you obsessively stalk a dude in Arizona online?

What's the payoff for you?

brassmonkey · 11-23-2016, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You're an old Dutch man living in the Netherlands why would you obsessively stalk a dude in Arizona online?

What's the payoff for you?

with my filter he post in silence.

the free thread bumps are welcome

nico-t · 11-23-2016, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You're an old Dutch man living in the Netherlands why would you obsessively stalk a dude in Arizona online?

Nice, fabrication #5 and #6, you're getting there

If you keep this up you're officially one the dumbest members on gfy, which is pretty impressive

nico-t · 11-23-2016, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

the free thread bumps are welcome

still making those sig pennies, ballin dogg

Bladewire · 11-23-2016, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

Nice, fabrication #5 and #6, you're getting there

If you keep this up you're officially one the dumbest members on gfy, which is pretty impressive

^^ triggered ^^

kane · 11-23-2016, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

"facilitate" is a bit ambiguous... is using a web browser to post on gfy comments that some might find offensive "facilitating"? I would think so, without a web browser, I would be unable to do so [as easily...]...

so by that logic, there would be nothing at all wrong if browsers tried to stop me from posting offensive comments? "you are about to post comments that some might find offensive, we are sorry but firefox is a 'safe space compliant' browser, we can't let you do that!"... such a feature would be completely ok in your book?

Again, it is a different thing.

Let's look at it from a different, non-internet point of view. Twitter is basically a billboard company. They provide billboards and anyone can post anything they want on these billboards. Google Chrome is basically a car and websites are homes and businesses. So long as you are not breaking any laws, Google shouldn't care what you are doing with their car. If you go to a business they don't like or a house where you talk to people about things they don't agree with, it is none of their business because nobody is associating Google with those businesses and/or people. They also don't care what billboards you read. However, if you post something racist on the billboard, Twitter is providing the actual billboard that you are using and their name is directly associated with what you post.

To directly answer your question, no, I would not like it if I went to post something on a site like GFY and a pop-up showed up telling me "Chrome doesn't allow you to post that kind of content." However, I see Chome, Firefox, Explorer etc and Twitter as two very different entities. Chrome gives you a ride to a house. They don't care what you do at the house once you get there. Twitter provides you the billboard to post on and if they don't want people posting certain types of things on their billboards they should be allowed to remove people who try to do so.

Joshua G · 11-23-2016, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

"facilitate" is a bit ambiguous... is using a web browser to post on gfy comments that some might find offensive "facilitating"? I would think so, without a web browser, I would be unable to do so [as easily...]...

so by that logic, there would be nothing at all wrong if browsers tried to stop me from posting offensive comments? "you are about to post comments that some might find offensive, we are sorry but firefox is a 'safe space compliant' browser, we can't let you do that!"... such a feature would be completely ok in your book?

thing is, telecoms are utilities, so they cant censor their traffic. but internet websites are entitled to control the content on their own websites, including user submitted.

in your view we should view successful social media sites as utilities & they should be regulated by the government not to control the content of user submitted data. this would have dangerous ramifications where a private entity running any website allowing user submissions cannot censor lies, libels, etc.

with the matter of a browser, or a google search engine censoring, its a private market. there are other browsers. there are other search engines. the market can choose, or create, alternatives to censorship, & the liberal media.

ATT is a utlity but a website is not, & should not be, no matter how much market power they command. the market is free to be disrupted at anytime.

TCLGirls · 11-23-2016, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Restaurants are not allowed to deny service to any group. Twitter is allowed to deny service to any group?

Wrong. Restaurants ARE ALLOWED to deny service to any group...except religious, gender, and ethnicity groups.

Ever hear of no shirt, no shoes, no service? That's denying service to aparticular group.

TCLGirls · 11-23-2016, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

true, but given that twitter is a major communication tool, it's debatable if they should have the right to censor who uses, or what is said using that tool...

No it's not "debatable". Twitter can deny service to anyone as long as the denial is not based on gender, race, or religion....and in some States, sexual orientation.

Quote:

it's kinda like if ATT would censor who you can make phone calls to, or what you say on the phone... "we listened on your call, we don't like what you said, so we are disconnecting your service!"

No that is an erroneous analogy. Eavsdropping is illegal.

TCLGirls · 11-23-2016, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

so you would have no problem at all, if one day you would get a message: "we noticed you are a 'black lives matter' supporter, we don't agree with those viewpoints, so effective immediately your account is shut down"? what if google de-indexed all 'black lives matter' related sites? obviously it's their site, so they should have the right to censor it any way they want?

That would be legal.

TCLGirls · 11-23-2016, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I'm not sure fact that it's free is relevant... but I'll play along with that logic... so lets say google, mozilla, microsoft, and few other companies decided that they don't agree with certain political sites' viewpoints, and blocked them in their free browsers...

it's their product, the product is free, so it's their rules... nothing at all would be wrong with censoring sites like that? if you do think something would be wrong, why does twitter have the right to censor, but for example microsoft in their IE software does not?

There is nothing illegal about that scenario. Whether it is "wrong" or not is totally subjective and the opinion of each individual.

OneHungLo · 11-23-2016, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

banned for what??? you supporting nazi bullshit?? why are you crying? anyway have a good one. your topic goes nowhere.

lol

woj · 11-23-2016, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua G

thing is, telecoms are utilities, so they cant censor their traffic. but internet websites are entitled to control the content on their own websites, including user submitted.

in your view we should view successful social media sites as utilities & they should be regulated by the government not to control the content of user submitted data. this would have dangerous ramifications where a private entity running any website allowing user submissions cannot censor lies, libels, etc.

with the matter of a browser, or a google search engine censoring, its a private market. there are other browsers. there are other search engines. the market can choose, or create, alternatives to censorship, & the liberal media.

ATT is a utlity but a website is not, & should not be, no matter how much market power they command. the market is free to be disrupted at anytime.

I think the way twitter is structured is closer to a utility than a traditional website... they just provide infrastructure for others to post on... I could for example setup https://twitter.com/WojsRants and there would be zero confusion that I'm in any way associated with twitter, or that twitter approves what I post... not unlike if I buy a domain name wojsrants.com, everyone knows that ICANN just provides infrastructure, and is not in any way associated with what I put on the website...

what makes a telephone company a utility? What if it turns out that there are more tweets each day than sms messages / phone calls? What if in 20 years, no one uses a phone/sms anymore, and everyone starts tweeting instead? at what point does a communication medium become a "utility"?

I would think when politicians, presidential candidates, etc use it to get their message across to the voters, it's pretty damn close to a utlity, if not there already? What if for example twitter decided that they don't like Hillary and won't let her have a twitter account? She would be at a disadvantage during elections, but by logic some in this thread have brought up, it would be perfectly ok for twitter to do so...

JTZM · 12-01-2016, 10:45 AM

I think this was simple fooling around...

NatalieK · 12-01-2016, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTZM

I think this was simple fooling around...

simple foolishness

oppoten · 12-01-2016, 12:24 PM

The guys in the pic are Jewish, as was pointed out earlier in the thread.

They admitted to it while talking to protestors outside.

candidpro · 12-01-2016, 01:09 PM

funny thing is she dated a Black guy!! lol

11-23-2016, 02:51 PM	#51
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,232	[QUOTE=nico-t;21326008]Please point out anyone defending skinheads and nazis, thanks You are defending the Kremlin, Putin, Skinheads & Nazis. And you post hate about Americans here everyday without fail. I've met many Dutch in my life, never met an uncool Dutch, you are the first, then again we've never met in person.

12-01-2016, 10:45 AM	#69
JTZM Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 44	I think this was simple fooling around...

12-01-2016, 12:24 PM	#71
oppoten NAME THE JEW Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 4,793	The guys in the pic are Jewish, as was pointed out earlier in the thread. They admitted to it while talking to protestors outside.

12-01-2016, 01:09 PM	#72
candidpro Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 186	funny thing is she dated a Black guy!! lol