once again drawing completely false conclusions, missing any point, and all around retarded incoherent rants. Brasshat ftw! :thumbsup

how am I supporting nazi bullshit? I'm just trying to point out potential pitfalls of censorship... censorship goes both ways... it's all fun and games when groups/sites/etc are censored that you don't like... but just as easily any group you support could be censored for any reason too...

ok last one. just stop cry me a river

You can always count on the Racist Defense League of America to show up at GFY.

How are you fuckers defending skinheads and Nazis? Are you one yourself?

There are a couple of big differences. First, I would be paying for ATT's service whereas Twitter is free. Second, my phone call between me and a friend (or whoever I am talking to) is a private phone conversation whereas Twitter is used to broadcast to a large audience.

If a phone company said they were listening to my private phone conversations and didn't like my political positions or my positions or race or any other issue and they were cutting me off, I would think that is wrong. If I used my phone to call into a live radio show and then went off on a racist rant that was broadcast on the air and ATT decided, upon hearing my rant, that they no longer wanted me as a customer, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Nazi/skinhead stuff has always been banned this is nothing new.

The people making it seem like something new and shocking seem to be white power and/or Nazi alt-right fanboys. NOT insinuating you are in any way.

Please point out anyone defending skinheads and nazis, thanks :thumbsup


Oh you can't! You just like to say dumbed down simplistic things! Ok got it :thumbsup

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 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.

The First Amendment is a double edged sword.
In commercial free speech there is the right of association.
If a private business, in a private place, wants to not allow certain speech that is not explicitly protected speech -- they have the right to do -- so as long as the violate no other guaranteed right or legal statute.

In a public place like the street; protesters have the right of association and the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and Federal law. The right of assembly is not absolute; a governmental authority may require a permit with reasonable restrictions toward public safety.

So, too fucking bad -- try and sue Twitter.

This is just pissing in the wind ...

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

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.

"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?

[QUOTE=Bladewire;21326113]you should see how many years he has stalked me. the guys is loons

[QUOTE=brassmonkey;21326137]Oh he's one of those? Thanks for the heads up now I know his type :thumbsup

my god, once you start taking brasshat seriously you're really lost :1orglaugh

the guy reported me probably a 1000 times to Eric, to the point that Eric just ignored all his crying :1orglaugh

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

Nice, fabrication #5 and #6, you're getting there :1orglaugh

If you keep this up you're officially one the dumbest members on gfy, which is pretty impressive :1orglaugh

still making those sig pennies, ballin dogg :thumbsup

:1orglaugh ^^ triggered ^^ :1orglaugh

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.

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.

:2 cents:

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.


No that is an erroneous analogy. Eavsdropping is illegal.

lol :error:error

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...

I think this was simple fooling around...

simple foolishness :2 cents:

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

They admitted to it while talking to protestors outside.

funny thing is she dated a Black guy!! lol

http://gossiponthis.com/wp-content/u...ila-shawne.jpg