- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tigerdropping’s Democrats Thoughts On Censorship
Posted on 1/8/21 at 11:32 pm to cwill
Posted on 1/8/21 at 11:32 pm to cwill
quote:
In what respect? Or is this just another vague uninformed post?
Baking cakes for gays was the start. Goverment intrusion for all. Very informed, to the point and succint.
1
Posted on 1/8/21 at 11:46 pm to chRxis
quote:
and *crickets*
Certainly i would prefer a smaller conservative government. Less taxes, far far less foreign aid waste that is rife with corruption, more personal responsibility for all. But none of these beliefs have anything to do with coordinated censorship from tech giants that ONLY stifle one political/ social view perspective.
But everyone on this board knows this.
Monopolistic business actions are not driving big techs censorship. Driving progressive global narratives is.
This post was edited on 1/8/21 at 11:48 pm
Posted on 1/8/21 at 11:48 pm to tigerfan 64
quote:
Baking cakes for gays was the start. Goverment intrusion for all. Very informed, to the point and succint.
Kinda uninformed bro. That was a state law (CO). It was appealed to the SCt where the state was reversed in a 7-2 decision. Obama doesn’t appear to have had much to do with this matter.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:01 am to cwill
Be it state or federal, goverment intrusion is still government intrusion.
Forcing compliance to liberal agendas does not supercede a businesses right to run how they see fit.
If their decision harms their own business, so be it.
Force the bakers to comply, force big tech to comply.
Simple solution.
If you feel the bakers rights were restored after arduous legal defense, allow big tech to face the same scrutiny or difficulties by the standards that have been set.
Forcing compliance to liberal agendas does not supercede a businesses right to run how they see fit.
If their decision harms their own business, so be it.
Force the bakers to comply, force big tech to comply.
Simple solution.
If you feel the bakers rights were restored after arduous legal defense, allow big tech to face the same scrutiny or difficulties by the standards that have been set.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:03 am to tigerfan 64
quote:
Be it state or federal, goverment intrusion is still government intrusion.
That’s not where you started. You tried to make it about Obama and fed gov. It was a state law dispute...you’re unknowingly using the motte and Bailey fallacy.
quote:
Force the bakers to comply, force big tech to comply.
Simple solution.
It’s been decided the baker wasn’t forced to comply.
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 12:06 am
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:06 am to unotiger21
quote:
Let’s have an honest discussion. What are your thoughts on the censorship?
I think it’s pretty hilarious that the “most powerful man in the world” with the biggest microphone in the world can’t figure out how to communicate without twitter.
Again, though, I’m suspended from Twitter too. You can’t say some shite... and if anyone is wondering why I’m suddenly over here on frickin Tiger Droppings political boards, there ya go. Conservatives aren’t singled out.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:10 am to ashleymeggan
quote:
I’m suspended from Twitter too. You can’t say some shite... and if anyone is wondering why I’m suddenly over here on frickin Tiger Droppings political boards
Try DU. You’ll be a hit there with the rest of your commie buddies.
And one more reason to hate Twitter.
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 12:11 am
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:10 am to unotiger21
Not a democrat but he’ll would have had to freeze over before I would vote for trump...that being said, I do not think his tweets today rise to the occasion of banning him.
People need to be responsible for their own actions. I don’t blame Kamala for the destruction during the BLM riots and I don’t blame Trump for the riots at the capital. What’s that saying that’s so popular around here? Stupid games win stupid prizes?
People need to be responsible for their own actions. I don’t blame Kamala for the destruction during the BLM riots and I don’t blame Trump for the riots at the capital. What’s that saying that’s so popular around here? Stupid games win stupid prizes?
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:14 am to EKG
quote:
Twitter is a private business and has the right to refuse service.
To anyone for any reason then?
Are there any restrictions on their right to conduct their business that way?
Does, for example, a baker or a wedding dress maker have that same unfettered right?
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:14 am to unotiger21
Think I know the answer now.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:16 am to chRxis
quote:
I suppose the onus is the right to create their own platform that can go toe to toe with Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Parler did that and it has been pulled from Google and Apple and Amazon has said they are pulling their servers.
This is way beyond FB and Twitter censoring as a private entity. This is 100% a censorship of a political viewpoint opposite of them.
This is getting worse by the hour.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:20 am to cwill
quote:
I dont recall it being a big issue until progs made it one in Obamas admin.
I guess in your effort to show your wisdom, you got out in front of your skis.
My quoted statement above refered to progs actions during the obama admin, and did not attribute blame to obama.
Slow down so you can keep up.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:23 am to tigerfan 64
Then why include the Obama administration? Pal, you got over your skis and now you’re dodging the trees. The case you cite was ultimately decided in the baker’s favor. A+ fail.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:28 am to cwill
quote:
Then why include the Obama administration
" in the obama administration" refers to a timeframe. When the colorado state action against the bakers occurred. Seems like cut and dried time refrence.
Slopes are clear.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:29 am to memphis tiger
I'll bite. I did my graduate degree at LSU and also have degrees from UA. I read here from time to time to get how SEC frat boys, and their parents think. Most of you guys are republican and not moderates, no matter what you say. My education is such that I've interviewed with Trump administration in top scale lifer positions (i.e. U.S. Treasury at GS15 scale etc. and a slew of other similar).
1. I personally am laughing at the whole thing. Twitter was going to ban trump in two weeks any way.
2. In general, I don't think it absolves tech companies. I don't think tech companies can simply say 'oh we banned trump' so they get excused from hard talks about section 230 and regulation of tech industry. In pharmaceuticals, banking, technology that effects the general public is evaluated before it can be used. They are pretty stringent, as I work in that space on the corporate side (i.e. I work only for fortune 100 corporations). I don't think tech should be allowed to self-regulate when they such a big influence outside of their space. Facebook makes their business from ads. They can't turn around say they had nothing to do with jan 6th, when people paid for ads to get a group of people to go to X place in the first place.
I think they are culpable, when their ap is used to organize crime. Whatever y'all might think, a group of people, some who are armed walking into a legislature where senate majority/minority leaders, speaker of the house and VP are present is a crime.
I don't think its just a mater of arresting those people. Tech needs to be held accountable. Its not just about what happened today. Facebook and all social media is a global company. In other countries, unregulated tech can lead to real civil chaos. There clearly needs to be standards regulations around how our information can be used, but also liability. Its up to tech to determine if they let politics on their platform at all. That also doesn't mean they are not liable if crime occurs through their platform.
Forgive any typos, I am drunk.
1. I personally am laughing at the whole thing. Twitter was going to ban trump in two weeks any way.
2. In general, I don't think it absolves tech companies. I don't think tech companies can simply say 'oh we banned trump' so they get excused from hard talks about section 230 and regulation of tech industry. In pharmaceuticals, banking, technology that effects the general public is evaluated before it can be used. They are pretty stringent, as I work in that space on the corporate side (i.e. I work only for fortune 100 corporations). I don't think tech should be allowed to self-regulate when they such a big influence outside of their space. Facebook makes their business from ads. They can't turn around say they had nothing to do with jan 6th, when people paid for ads to get a group of people to go to X place in the first place.
I think they are culpable, when their ap is used to organize crime. Whatever y'all might think, a group of people, some who are armed walking into a legislature where senate majority/minority leaders, speaker of the house and VP are present is a crime.
I don't think its just a mater of arresting those people. Tech needs to be held accountable. Its not just about what happened today. Facebook and all social media is a global company. In other countries, unregulated tech can lead to real civil chaos. There clearly needs to be standards regulations around how our information can be used, but also liability. Its up to tech to determine if they let politics on their platform at all. That also doesn't mean they are not liable if crime occurs through their platform.
Forgive any typos, I am drunk.
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 12:34 am
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:34 am to tigerfan 64
quote:
" in the obama administration" refers to a timeframe. When the colorado state action against the bakers occurred. Seems like cut and dried time refrence.
No you said:
quote:
I dont recall it being a big issue until progs made it one in Obamas admin.
That’s not a timeframe ref or you’re a person that doesn’t write so good.
Look bro, you tried to make it about Obama, it was a state issue, and the baker won! A++ on the fail Richter scale!
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 12:35 am
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:36 am to jaytothen
Agreed. I don’t know when we will hit bottom.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:37 am to unotiger21
Twitter, Facebook, et. al. have policies. Those policies should be enforced evenly across the board. If Trump broke a rule that violates those companies’ policies he should face the consequences, as should any other person that uses the platform. Race, religion, political party, etc. shouldn’t matter. They also should have never made an exception for public leaders as it just created this area of controversy.
Also, it’s the fricking internet and he’s the fricking POTUS and a billionaire. Make another fricking website where you can spew your bullshite and people will still go read it.
Also, it’s the fricking internet and he’s the fricking POTUS and a billionaire. Make another fricking website where you can spew your bullshite and people will still go read it.
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:39 am to ashleymeggan
Why are you suspended?
Posted on 1/9/21 at 12:39 am to songbird
quote:
Songbird
What a weird post - bragging about education and only working at fortune 100 companies, while bragging on interviewing for government jobs?
Then the content is jumbled, incoherent and full of misspellings. Not a grammar nazi - but just bizarre man.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News