Almost 140 serious injuries to Capitol Cops

[martybegan]

My front lawn isn't a digital commons.

You made a broad generalized statement, I retorted, you attempted to weakly counter and lost.

So I'm right, you don't have a right to practice religion anywhere you want which makes your analogy bullshit.

You can preach on the sidewalk out in front of my house, and you can't be stopped. You can walk up to my door and try to talk to me until I say stop.

Nice try, dippy.

Right. Sidewalk is commons. Actual commons. Like, legit commons.

Twitter is not.

Twitter should be. Either that or they should be forced to admit they only approve of certain viewpoints publicly and make it part of their TOS, not end run like they are doing now.

Ah, the authoritarian thug coming out wanting to force people to do what he wants.

How about no.

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

 

[martybegan]

Again, they claim to be open, but only really go after one side with their bullshit terms of service claims.

If they don't claim the views as their own, and claim to be about open discussion, why should they worry about being placed under 1st amendment restrictions?

Because they still have the right not to distribute what they don’t want to distribute with their own resources.

“Why” is irrelevant. You want to override other people’s rights with your desires. It doesn’t work that way. Not in this country.

They aren't really even distributing, they post and people can see it. It's not like they are mailing things out.

Then they just have to admit they are lefty tools and only lefty views will be allowed.

The hell they aren’t distributing. It’s on their servers accessed by their site and distributed over their connection to the internet.

Jesus, do you not realize how stupid that statement sounds?

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

 

[colfax_m]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

 

[colfax_m]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

 

[martybegan]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

it's called making people who say they run an open discussion platform run an open discussion platform, and not want to ban people for viewpoints, then try to find some "reason" in their TOS to do so.

It's making them live up to their supposed values and business model.

 

[DrLove]

It sure as hell does in the application, you can quote what they print all you want, it's what they do that shows they are smarmy leftist fucks, which is why I guess you suck their twit-dicks all the time.

Only seems that way because people on your political side can’t stop behaving like utter assholes on the internet.

And you are kind enough to provide ample examples of such.

Excuses Excuses.

You just can’t accept that people might not like you and might no want anything to do with you.

Because you’re an asshole.

Accountability is a bitch for some people.

Like Dear Leader, Marty takes great pride in his assholery

 

[martybegan]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

It does mean something.

We sure as hell can force them. it's amazing how all of a sudden progs like you hate government regulation when its used to allow more freedom for people instead of less.

Twitter and facebook don't lose anything by being held to content fairness.

 

[colfax_m]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

it's called making people who say they run an open discussion platform run an open discussion platform, and not want to ban people for viewpoints, then try to find some "reason" in their TOS to do so.

It's making them live up to their supposed values and business model.

You are deciding what it means to be an open platform and you have no right to do so.

You want to make people do things, then you're going to have to deal with being an authoritarian.

 

[colfax_m]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

It does mean something.

We sure as hell can force them. it's amazing how all of a sudden progs like you hate government regulation when its used to allow more freedom for people instead of less.

Twitter and facebook don't lose anything by being held to content fairness.

Twitter and Facebook lose their freedom to be the type of platform they want to be.

Since when did you get so excited about stripping freedom away from others?

 

[martybegan]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

it's called making people who say they run an open discussion platform run an open discussion platform, and not want to ban people for viewpoints, then try to find some "reason" in their TOS to do so.

It's making them live up to their supposed values and business model.

You are deciding what it means to be an open platform and you have no right to do so.

You want to make people do things, then you're going to have to deal with being an authoritarian.

I am assuming when someone says "open platform", it is open, not adjudicated at the whim of political wimps who can't hang in an actual open debate environment.

So you are a pure "big L" Libertarian?

So by your absolutism something like a stop sign is "authoritarian"?

 

[martybegan]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

It does mean something.

We sure as hell can force them. it's amazing how all of a sudden progs like you hate government regulation when its used to allow more freedom for people instead of less.

Twitter and facebook don't lose anything by being held to content fairness.

Twitter and Facebook lose their freedom to be the type of platform they want to be.

Since when did you get so excited about stripping freedom away from others?

They lose no freedom at all. They are protected from responsibility for the content on their platforms, they ADMIT that the content isn't theirs, and thus doesn't represent them or their views. So what freedom are they losing?

They still get paid, they still run the site, they still can take their own positions on things.

 

[colfax_m]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

it's called making people who say they run an open discussion platform run an open discussion platform, and not want to ban people for viewpoints, then try to find some "reason" in their TOS to do so.

It's making them live up to their supposed values and business model.

You are deciding what it means to be an open platform and you have no right to do so.

You want to make people do things, then you're going to have to deal with being an authoritarian.

I am assuming when someone says "open platform", it is open, not adjudicated at the whim of political wimps who can't hang in an actual open debate environment.

So you are a pure "big L" Libertarian?

So by your absolutism something like a stop sign is "authoritarian"?

I don't care what you assume. You don't get to force others to adopt your beliefs.

A stop sign exists on public roadways.

Jesus, what the hell is your problem that you can't understand the difference between public and private entities?

 

[colfax_m]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

It does mean something.

We sure as hell can force them. it's amazing how all of a sudden progs like you hate government regulation when its used to allow more freedom for people instead of less.

Twitter and facebook don't lose anything by being held to content fairness.

Twitter and Facebook lose their freedom to be the type of platform they want to be.

Since when did you get so excited about stripping freedom away from others?

They lose no freedom at all. They are protected from responsibility for the content on their platforms, they ADMIT that the content isn't theirs, and thus doesn't represent them or their views. So what freedom are they losing?

They still get paid, they still run the site, they still can take their own positions on things.

They lose the freedom to not disseminate content they don't want to disseminate. They lose the freedom to run their site as they see fit.

 

[martybegan]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

it's called making people who say they run an open discussion platform run an open discussion platform, and not want to ban people for viewpoints, then try to find some "reason" in their TOS to do so.

It's making them live up to their supposed values and business model.

You are deciding what it means to be an open platform and you have no right to do so.

You want to make people do things, then you're going to have to deal with being an authoritarian.

I am assuming when someone says "open platform", it is open, not adjudicated at the whim of political wimps who can't hang in an actual open debate environment.

So you are a pure "big L" Libertarian?

So by your absolutism something like a stop sign is "authoritarian"?

I don't care what you assume. You don't get to force others to adopt your beliefs.

A stop sign exists on public roadways.

Jesus, what the hell is your problem that you can't understand the difference between public and private entities?

Your problem is you go with absolutist arguments and then get pissy when called on it.

I have to obey a stop sign, I guess that makes traffic laws authoritarian.

And twitter and facebook use bandwidth regulated and "owned" by the government. So I guess if my private car can be made to follow a stop sign, twitter and facebook can be made to follow the first amendment, or a form of it.

 

[martybegan]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

It does mean something.

We sure as hell can force them. it's amazing how all of a sudden progs like you hate government regulation when its used to allow more freedom for people instead of less.

Twitter and facebook don't lose anything by being held to content fairness.

Twitter and Facebook lose their freedom to be the type of platform they want to be.

Since when did you get so excited about stripping freedom away from others?

They lose no freedom at all. They are protected from responsibility for the content on their platforms, they ADMIT that the content isn't theirs, and thus doesn't represent them or their views. So what freedom are they losing?

They still get paid, they still run the site, they still can take their own positions on things.

They lose the freedom to not disseminate content they don't want to disseminate. They lose the freedom to run their site as they see fit.

It's not their content, none of it is their content unless posted on facebook as facebook.

They can't have their sites override other sites, or force people not to use competing sites to use their sites. I guess that means they aren't "free"

 

[colfax_m]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

it's called making people who say they run an open discussion platform run an open discussion platform, and not want to ban people for viewpoints, then try to find some "reason" in their TOS to do so.

It's making them live up to their supposed values and business model.

You are deciding what it means to be an open platform and you have no right to do so.

You want to make people do things, then you're going to have to deal with being an authoritarian.

I am assuming when someone says "open platform", it is open, not adjudicated at the whim of political wimps who can't hang in an actual open debate environment.

So you are a pure "big L" Libertarian?

So by your absolutism something like a stop sign is "authoritarian"?

I don't care what you assume. You don't get to force others to adopt your beliefs.

A stop sign exists on public roadways.

Jesus, what the hell is your problem that you can't understand the difference between public and private entities?

Your problem is you go with absolutist arguments and then get pissy when called on it.

I have to obey a stop sign, I guess that makes traffic laws authoritarian.

And twitter and facebook use bandwidth regulated and "owned" by the government. So I guess if my private car can be made to follow a stop sign, twitter and facebook can be made to follow the first amendment, or a form of it.

Bandwidth is regulated and owned by the government?

Go on. Tell me where you got this nonsense.

 

[colfax_m]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

It does mean something.

We sure as hell can force them. it's amazing how all of a sudden progs like you hate government regulation when its used to allow more freedom for people instead of less.

Twitter and facebook don't lose anything by being held to content fairness.

Twitter and Facebook lose their freedom to be the type of platform they want to be.

Since when did you get so excited about stripping freedom away from others?

They lose no freedom at all. They are protected from responsibility for the content on their platforms, they ADMIT that the content isn't theirs, and thus doesn't represent them or their views. So what freedom are they losing?

They still get paid, they still run the site, they still can take their own positions on things.

They lose the freedom to not disseminate content they don't want to disseminate. They lose the freedom to run their site as they see fit.

It's not their content, none of it is their content unless posted on facebook as facebook.

They can't have their sites override other sites, or force people not to use competing sites to use their sites. I guess that means they aren't "free"

Doesn't matter whose content it is. They have the freedom to not disseminate content on their platform. That's the freedom you want to take away from them.

Agreed, they don't have the right to force others to do things they don't want to do. That's sort of the whole point I'm trying to make. You can't force them to post your content and they can't force you to only use their site. There's no conflict here.

 

[martybegan]

It's relieving them of the worries about being held accountable for content they already say is not theirs.

How can someone who wants MORE open discussion be authoritarian?

You are just giddy because a proxy has done the censoring you want done for the political class who's dick you suck.

You want to force Twitter to change because you don't like the choices they've made. It's authoritarian when you want to force others to bend to your will when you have no right to do so.

Force.

That's the word you used. Not me.

it's called making people who say they run an open discussion platform run an open discussion platform, and not want to ban people for viewpoints, then try to find some "reason" in their TOS to do so.

It's making them live up to their supposed values and business model.

You are deciding what it means to be an open platform and you have no right to do so.

You want to make people do things, then you're going to have to deal with being an authoritarian.

I am assuming when someone says "open platform", it is open, not adjudicated at the whim of political wimps who can't hang in an actual open debate environment.

So you are a pure "big L" Libertarian?

So by your absolutism something like a stop sign is "authoritarian"?

I don't care what you assume. You don't get to force others to adopt your beliefs.

A stop sign exists on public roadways.

Jesus, what the hell is your problem that you can't understand the difference between public and private entities?

Your problem is you go with absolutist arguments and then get pissy when called on it.

I have to obey a stop sign, I guess that makes traffic laws authoritarian.

And twitter and facebook use bandwidth regulated and "owned" by the government. So I guess if my private car can be made to follow a stop sign, twitter and facebook can be made to follow the first amendment, or a form of it.

Bandwidth is regulated and owned by the government?

Go on. Tell me where you got this nonsense.

none of the internet goes over the radio spectrum? it's all hard lines and cables?

 

[martybegan]

Disseminating, not distributing, people gotta go TO twitter to look at things, twitter doesn't send you anything.

All of this dancing around with language is meaningless. Disseminate and distribute are synonymous and irrelevant to the point.

If Twitter doesn't want to disseminate information from their own property, you can't force them. Doing so would be violating their rights.

It does mean something.

We sure as hell can force them. it's amazing how all of a sudden progs like you hate government regulation when its used to allow more freedom for people instead of less.

Twitter and facebook don't lose anything by being held to content fairness.

Twitter and Facebook lose their freedom to be the type of platform they want to be.

Since when did you get so excited about stripping freedom away from others?

They lose no freedom at all. They are protected from responsibility for the content on their platforms, they ADMIT that the content isn't theirs, and thus doesn't represent them or their views. So what freedom are they losing?

They still get paid, they still run the site, they still can take their own positions on things.

They lose the freedom to not disseminate content they don't want to disseminate. They lose the freedom to run their site as they see fit.

It's not their content, none of it is their content unless posted on facebook as facebook.

They can't have their sites override other sites, or force people not to use competing sites to use their sites. I guess that means they aren't "free"

Doesn't matter whose content it is. They have the freedom to not disseminate content on their platform. That's the freedom you want to take away from them.

Agreed, they don't have the right to force others to do things they don't want to do. That's sort of the whole point I'm trying to make. You can't force them to post your content and they can't force you to only use their site. There's no conflict here.

And in the end, your side gets twitter and facebook, and gets to claim your views are the only views, because they will eventually be the only ones allowed.

And anyone who tries to make a separate platform gets fucked like Parler did.

Next banks will refuse to do business with anyone except a progressive SJW twat like you, and you will cheer it on.

Now you know why I hate your fucking guts.

 

[colfax_m]

none of the internet goes over the radio spectrum? it's all hard lines and cables?

Your legal theories get shittier and shittier.

Who sends internet over the radio spectrum?