The Former Guy sues the internet

[bacha29]

You didn't read it apparently.

The only clear solution would be to begin charging the individual for posting content. No more free sites like BC. That appears to be the only real way to settle the matter. Simply make the content posters pay.... which I know you won't do.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

The only clear solution would be to begin charging the individual for posting content.

That literally has nothing at all to do with what we're discussing. Try reading the article I gave you.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Again when the platform is a form of private enterprise it's their property and their rules.

Tell that to Ma Bell.

 

[bacha29]

That literally has nothing at all to do with what we're discussing. Try reading the article I gave you.

It has everything to do with it. In the end you could very well see in addition to a monthly subscriber fee a monthly usage fee based on how often and how long you're on social media. It's the only fair way. If you've got something that you feel is important enough to post on social media then it's important enough to be willing pay for it. Don't you agree?

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

It has everything to do with it. In the end you could very well see in addition to a monthly subscriber fee a monthly usage fee based on how often and how long you're on social media. It's the only fair way. If you've got something that you feel is important enough to post on social media then it's important enough to be willing pay for it. Don't you agree?

That literally has nothing at all to do with what we're discussing. Try reading the article I gave you.

 

[bacha29]

That literally has nothing at all to do with what we're discussing. Try reading the article I gave you.

Look you're a free market capitalist. You purchase something you pay the going rate. But, you're also a fair weather capitalist just as long as the market sectors you're involved in are working in your favor. However, when I mentioned the idea of paying not only for subscriber access but also time used and content posted you run for cover.

If everyone had to pay for the services used every month and every second of time purchased the matter would be settled and the law suits would disappear overnight.

Once again it's free market capitalism. Why in your opinion should it not be allowed to decide the matter? It's the American way. And getting out your wallet and actually having to pay for something including the to opportunity to post comment on this site often shuts people up in a hurry. As they say.... "money talks as BS walks.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Look you're a free market capitalist. You purchase something you pay the going rate. But, you're also a fair weather capitalist just as long as the market sectors you're involved in are working in your favor. However, when I mentioned the idea of paying not only for subscriber access but also time used and content posted you run for cover.

If everyone had to pay for the services used every month and every second of time purchased the matter would be settled and the law suits would disappear overnight.

Once again it's free market capitalism. Why in your opinion should it not be allowed to decide the matter? It's the American way. And getting out your wallet and actually having to pay for something including the to opportunity to post comment on this site often shuts people up in a hurry. As they say.... "money talks as BS walks.

Whether they charge or not has nothing to do with the case. You're obsessed with that stupid argument, you need to find a better one.

 

[bacha29]

Whether they charge or not has nothing to do with the case. You're obsessed with that stupid argument, you need to find a better one.

Still better than the one you've got. Trump's lawsuit was about getting stupid people to send him money with zero accountability regarding what he does with it. And BTW You would be nowhere to be found if you actually had to pay out of your pocket for the opportunity to use BC.
You're a free speech guy. Nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with paying for a service that would give you the opportunity to reach a larger audience with your message than what you could otherwise do on your own.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

And BTW You would be nowhere to be found if you actually had to pay out of your pocket for the opportunity to use BC.
You're a free speech guy. Nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with paying for a service that would give you the opportunity to reach a larger audience with your message than what you could otherwise do on your own.

That literally has nothing at all to do with what we're discussing. Try reading the article I gave you.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Still better than the one you've got.

The supreme court of the United States just signaled that they would uphold regulating social media. All you can say is 'Hurr Durr private company'.

You've got nothing.

 

[bacha29]

The supreme court of the United States just signaled that they would uphold regulating social media. All you can say is 'Hurr Durr private company'.

You've got nothing.

And would that mean that Section 230 would continue to hold social media platforms harmless regardless of how false, inflammatory or obscene some may find it? In other words.... anything goes regardless of what the DCA says?

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

And would that mean that Section 230 would continue to hold social media platforms harmless regardless of how false, inflammatory or obscene some may find it? In other words.... anything goes regardless of what the DCA says?

Again, try reading the article I posted.

 

[Sportello]

Tell that to Ma Bell.

If you think Ma Bell is the same as Twitter, no one can help you.

 

[bacha29]

Again, try reading the article I posted.

Do you really and truly believe that Trump's lawsuit against the named social media platforms is actually going to make it all the way to SCOTUS?

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

If you think Ma Bell is the same as Twitter, no one can help you.

If you think att&t with 80 million users is a common carrier but Twitter with 200 million isn't, then no one can help you.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

Do you really and truly believe that Trump's lawsuit against the named social media platforms is actually going to make it all the way to SCOTUS?

It's a class action lawsuit, I don't know what's going to be in it yet.

 

[vantexan]

Again when the platform is a form of private enterprise it's their property and their rules. They don't HAVE to provide that service. If you want a completely wide open social media platform then be prepared for content you might find obscene and offensive. But, this is the what you wanted and there won't be anything you can do about it. And furthermore you could expect Facebook, Twitter etc to begin charging you for every second or every word of content you post. When it's no longer free , that will be the game changer.

There's already pornographic content on Twitter. Again, if they allow people on who rail against the United States, rail against conservatives, then why are they shutting down a pro U.S. former president? They were given the Section 230 exemption because they argued they were a platform, didn't editorialize like newspapers. They don't HAVE to have that exemption and Congress has the right to take it from them. Then they can experience what the NY Times and others know too well, the right to be sued for harming others.

 

[Indecisi0n]

I want mt deleted posts on BC back!

Abolish the First Amendment!

I’m on it

 

[fishtm2001]

There's already pornographic content on Twitter. Again, if they allow people on who rail against the United States, rail against conservatives, then why are they shutting down a pro U.S. former president? They were given the Section 230 exemption because they argued they were a platform, didn't editorialize like newspapers. They don't HAVE to have that exemption and Congress has the right to take it from them. Then they can experience what the NY Times and others know too well, the right to be sued for harming others.

This is how the company explained its reasoning, point by point:

• “President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an ‘orderly transition’ on January 20th.
• “The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a ‘safe’ target, as he will not be attending.
• “The use of the words ‘American Patriots’ to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
• “The mention of his supporters having a ‘GIANT VOICE long into the future’ and that ‘They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!’ is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an ‘orderly transition’ and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
• “Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.”

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

This is how the company explained its reasoning, point by point:

In other words they didn't have a good reason other than they didn't like his politics, and after their reactionary ban, these lame ass excuses were the best they could come up with.