Amazon

[Rez Exelon]

You did not answer the question I posted and you quoted. Until you do, your a nothing burger.

There you go missing subtlety again. So I'll use smaller words. "None". There are no major tech companies that I'd put my faith in. There are some worse than others, but I'd never fully invest in any of them.

 

[dennishoddy]

There you go missing subtlety again. So I'll use smaller words. "None". There are no major tech companies that I'd put my faith in. There are some worse than others, but I'd never fully invest in any of them.

No, again I didn't miss it. Your response in that post didn't reflect what you just said.

 

[Rez Exelon]

No, again I didn't miss it. Your response in that post didn't reflect what you just said.

Reread the last paragraph, and try to see the subtle connection of saying all large corps are like politicians that sold their souls. That doesn't sound like a reputable move does it?

 

[Blue Heeler]

So much to unpack in this one.

Again, for the people in the back --- Amazon is not disallowing conservative groups that I've seen. They ARE disallowing groups promoting violence, extremism and, in some cases, demonstrably false narratives.

Is censoring legal speech okay? We seem to think so here. I got a warning point for naughty language recently, and the post was edited to change it to -----. That's censoring me. But it's okay to do because that's in the Terms for the site right? Point is, when speech we don't like gets censored people think it's okay, when what they agree with gets censored people get mad. Any private company can censoring it according to their terms. The ones individuals agree to when getting to use the service for free. Side note, remember that anything that is "free" online isn't really the product. YOU are the product, and the service is the sell.

Most people who are not fascists --- that's a fancy way to say Antifa. They are Anti-Fascist. It's right in the name. We don't generally like antifa around here.

Not "shouting-down" a speaker. Real question --- did you watch the presidential debates? Especially the first. That was nothing but a certain DJT yelling over his opponent and the moderator. Then people here cheered it. See the above point about it's only bad when the other side does it.

And finally the baker analogy. Were we to take your point that he was abiding by a protected right, and with consideration that Citizens United said corporations are people, then we cannot deprive corps of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Which, in corporate terms, is making tons and tons and tons of cash from the consumer. So those bad censoring services are just practicing their faith (in money).

I will type slow for you since you failed at unpacking.

Amazon, Google and Apple are restricting speech. Not about their legal right to do such as much as ... and I am typing slow for you ... they are still censoring speech. Should they be censoring legal speech?

Your second paragraph essentially said nothing in 117 words. I am guessing from your other posts where you try so hard to sound smarter than you really are that this is not a record for you.

“ ... that’s a fancy way to say Antifa. They are anti-fascist. It’ right in their name”. You need to put down your liberal coloring books and try to do some honest research. Antifa utilizes fascist tactics to limit speech. That does not make them “anti-fascist” (genius).

“Real question .... did you watch the presidential debates?” Are you trying to virtue signal, make a puerile political point or simply denigrate yourself with this comment comparing Trump’s communication style to the violent tactics of the _____ (fill in the blank) knobs in antifa?

Baker analogy ... reread my post. Move your lips if it helps with the comprehension.

 

[dennishoddy]

Reread the last paragraph, and try to see the subtle connection of saying all large corps are like politicians that sold their souls. That doesn't sound like a reputable move does it?

Of course all Politicians sell their souls. I've posted many times about how that happens.
So how are you with the Iranian Aitolia's being allowed to say death to America on Twitter and not be offended by it? Still up btw while Republican sites are being taken down by big tech?
You support this?

 

[Rez Exelon]

I will type slow for you since you failed at unpacking.

Amazon, Google and Apple are restricting speech. Not about their legal right to do such as much as ... and I am typing slow for you ... they are still censoring speech. Should they be censoring legal speech?

Your second paragraph essentially said nothing in 117 words. I am guessing from your other posts where you try so hard to sound smarter than you really are that this is not a record for you.

“ ... that’s a fancy way to say Antifa. They are anti-fascist. It’ right in their name”. You need to put down your liberal coloring books and try to do some honest research. Antifa utilizes fascist tactics to limit speech. That does not make them “anti-fascist” (genius).

“Real question .... did you watch the presidential debates?” Are you trying to virtue signal, make a puerile political point or simply denigrate yourself with this comment comparing Trump’s communication style to the violent tactics of the _____ (fill in the blank) knobs in antifa?

Baker analogy ... reread my post. Move your lips if it helps with the comprehension.

Awwwww you're turning into a new play buddy like Dennis up there. You are just as adept at grasping nuances of language and sarcasm as he is. Although he's never done a word count on me, so points for that.

Should they be censoring anything? It's their right. Depending how much you believe in conservative values of individualism, and the government staying out of private business, then sure it's right. Fine and dandy even. Because the market will determine what's allowed. And if the market doesn't like it, then they'll allow speech equally or fail. So, tell me --- what do YOU think?

117 words --- well, I said something. You missed it but it was there. If OSA censors dirty language, we're censoring speech. Are YOU okay with that? If so, why?

The Antifa comment, since you missed this, was sarcasm.

And good Lord, I don't know how to put it more clearly. Did you watch the presidential debates? Because you cited "“shouting-down” a speaker, not allowing civil discourse" and that debate was nothing but DJT shouting over everyone. So what's your take on it? Was he censoring/limiting the speech of Biden? And side note, I watch all debates in their entirety. it's actually something I like and make time for.

Baker Analogy --- Baker gets to refuse someone because of his beliefs? Okay, Companies can limit speech because of their beliefs. There simplified it for you.

Let me know if I can clarify anything for you in the morning when I wake up.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Of course all Politicians sell their souls. I've posted many times about how that happens.
So how are you with the Iranian Aitolia's being allowed to say death to America on Twitter and not be offended by it? Still up btw while Republican sites are being taken down by big tech?
You support this?

WooHoo! We agree on something! Politicans may sell their souls, but they're bringing us closer on something. We've got common ground now.

As far as whether the Ayatollah can post threats or not --- some finer points on that which we'll never agree on would get into a whole sidebar about global politics and a few decades of US/Iran history, but long story short, no, that's probably not a good one to have up. Again, you should complain about it to Twitter if it bothers you.

 

[Blue Heeler]

Let me know if I can clarify anything for you in the morning when I wake up.

You try to post above your grade level. So no, I don't think you are capable.

 

[Pstmstr]

So much to unpack in this one.

Again, for the people in the back --- Amazon is not disallowing conservative groups that I've seen. They ARE disallowing groups promoting violence, extremism and, in some cases, demonstrably false narratives.

Is censoring legal speech okay? We seem to think so here. I got a warning point for naughty language recently, and the post was edited to change it to -----. That's censoring me. But it's okay to do because that's in the Terms for the site right? Point is, when speech we don't like gets censored people think it's okay, when what they agree with gets censored people get mad. Any private company can censoring it according to their terms. The ones individuals agree to when getting to use the service for free. Side note, remember that anything that is "free" online isn't really the product. YOU are the product, and the service is the sell.

Most people who are not fascists --- that's a fancy way to say Antifa. They are Anti-Fascist. It's right in the name. We don't generally like antifa around here.

Not "shouting-down" a speaker. Real question --- did you watch the presidential debates? Especially the first. That was nothing but a certain DJT yelling over his opponent and the moderator. Then people here cheered it. See the above point about it's only bad when the other side does it.

And finally the baker analogy. Were we to take your point that he was abiding by a protected right, and with consideration that Citizens United said corporations are people, then we cannot deprive corps of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Which, in corporate terms, is making tons and tons and tons of cash from the consumer. So those bad censoring services are just practicing their faith (in money).

Censoring per their policies is fine. They don’t enforce their policies equally. They should just be honest and say they will ban who they want to. There has been a massive purge of conservatives this week on Twitter. Meanwhile, Antifa goons shut down a bookstore yesterday because they were opposed to Andy NGO’s book, Unmasked, being carried there. They organized this via Twitter. Difference of opinion seems to be fine until you don’t agree with the opinion. The truth is our opinions don’t truly matter to anyone but us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BobbyV]

LOL, I don't know there's people on this very board that have said they'd like me buried with fishies. So I doubt that this site is free from people that support their actions. Look at the thread's comparing Ashli Babbitt versus Ahmed Arbury for instance. Everyone here quickly worked to find out his background, previous legal troubles etc. Ashli was, for the part of the thread I followed, always referred to as an Air Force vet. But if dig deeper, she had her own legal troubles that I never saw mentioned here. Point being, that folks weren't treating her the same, possibly due to being in support of her actions.

Companies are going to do what companies do --- pivot and keep making money. Twitter made money on Trump for years for instance, then decided to act at the last second. It's like a serial killer accepting Jesus 10 minutes before the gas chamber. All the other companies are doing the same thing --- the brand is toxic, they don't want to be seen associated with it because it might hurt the brand. Like how most companies suddenly care about black people in February, and LGBTQ during pride month, but crap on everyone not making them money 100% of the year.

Fair enough . . .