Reply With Quote
So derp is still trying to make this sociopath shtick work?
Lol "team"
So derp is still trying to make this sociopath shtick work?
He's still trying to make "lashing out" workSo derp is still trying to make this sociopath shtick work?
The cuck and tranny coming together this morning for some group therapy. Nice. Carry on.
I look forward to reading your responses to Winehole's posts on the topic.The cuck and tranny coming together this morning for some group therapy. Nice. Carry on.
Poor derp feels ganged up on. Like Alex Jones.The cuck and tranny coming together this morning for some group therapy. Nice. Carry on.
tapped out. can't back up his own bs, as usual.
had Spurtacular been willing to do the topical discussion thing he might have found me more sympathetic than he suspected.
while I think that what internet platforms are doing is legally and cons utionally legit, there are foreseeable drawbacks to websites adopting EU-style speech restrictions en masse.
one of them is political viewpoint discrimination. I don't think that's the issue here.
Point to the post that even remotely claims that. Yea, that's not gonna happen.
I thought it was he sitting POTUS who selected a special counsel that's investigating this 'hysterical conspiracy theory'?
it's not at all hard to imagine the trend leading to controversial, rude, politically radical or otherwise disturbing views being routinely excluded from digital platforms.
I think it's reasonable to suggest that digital platforms shouldn't be policing speech.
What I think is unreasonable is suggesting the government needs to police the platforms instead. That's the more perilous road; if digital platforms must be policed, better they do it themselves than the state.
That you feel ganged up on? You don't have to admit it. It's crystal clear.Point to the post that even remotely claims that. Yea, that's not gonna happen.
the state telling digital platforms that they cannot exclude content is but a short distance from the state telling them that this or that content must be excluded.
Not a fan of the decision, even if the subject is an idiot -stirrer that takes advantage of dumb, uneducated people, tbh.
On the other hand, didn't we have some Congressional hearings not that long ago asking some of these tech companies what were they doing to tackle fake news?
Fortunately for him, he can have his website as an outlet to exercise his free speech...
I agree with that, but the question inches closer to: are TOS that potentially preclude speech enforceable? And he certainly can test that in court.
bad facts make bad law, or in this case, custom.
digital platforms in large measure determine the dimensions of public debate. inasmuch as that is true, it's arguable that restriction is bad per se.
some people -- like apparently DarrinS, Spurtacular and Chris -- think the government needs to abrogate the speech and association rights of private companies to prevent unfair outcomes.
seems to me fairly well established that people can limit themselves contractually. that's what TOS is, a contract.
how are the TOS of a digital platform different from say, a non-disclosure agreement? both limit speech, but one of them should be unenforceable?
Well, for one, NDAs are not as simple to enforce as it might look at first. For example, courts will likely not allow NDA's enforcement unless the disclosed/protected information is valuable or confidential.
More here: http://www.acc.com/legalresources/qu...agreements.cfm
So there are careful balances/considerations that take place even when both sides agree to curtail certain rights.
this is an important point.
when legislators mount the soap box to ask you what you're doing about X, it's reasonable to presume that if you don't do something about X, the US Congress might step in to do it for you.
FB, Twitter and Youtube(Google) probably feel that they were forced to do something like this. an obnoxious liar like Alex Jones makes a convenient scapegoat.
Last edited by Winehole23; 08-07-2018 at 09:04 AM.
just spitballing, how might the issues be raised in this case?
Spurtacular, continuing to ignore the topic he supposedly cares about.
a better comparison might be with moral turpitude clauses and the like. expression or behavior that tends to bring disrepute upon the contractor can be limited, presumably with balancing considerations as well. I mention this because it touches on rights of association, unlike non-disclosure.
For example, they could approach it the same way as non-competes: being too broad, excessively restrictive, anti-compe ive (this one is key, since some of these platforms have their own news services).
There's some case law already: https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverh...e-enforceable/
Not saying it's a slam dunk, or anything like that, but you could build arguments for a legal challenge, IMO.
no doubt Alex Jones will challenge it while he can still afford to
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions