The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment
-
Yes, and your claims about the Kavanaugh hearings are false.
This isn't hard.
It's very easy to say that there was a treasonous, attempted coup, on Jan 6th. If you can't utter that simple fact without engaging in (false) whataboutisms then you simply look like you're a fascist who hates democracy.
-
Ok, if you say so, dearie.
-
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
"You can grab them by the pussy BECAUSE THEY LET YOU"
I have sex with my husband because he lets me.
'I just start kissing them, I DON'T EVEN WAIT'
-
What do you think about the woman Trump talked about in that conversation who led him on so he would buy her a bunch of furniture, despite knowing she wouldn't sleep with him?
This is where you give her the pussy pass.
Arianne Zucker was there for most of the conversation and she didn't seem offended, but I guess you are offended for her.
-
@raphjd
There is no "choice" under Section 230...If you publish a libelous post about someone, you are responsible! No Section 230 protection!
If you provide a platform, and a 3rd party posts libelous content on that platform, you can sue the person who authored the post, but you cannot sue the platform!
If you provide a platform, and you post content that is libelous, you have no protection under Section 230 - because you're not a 3rd party!
-
NYT is a publisher. They control what is published, therefore they are liable for what is on their site.
Twitter is a platform, so they have no legal liability for what is posted. HOWEVER, they act as a publisher by controlling what is published.
-
@raphjd
Sorry - removing some posts (and protection against suits because of that) is covered under Section 230You are not guaranteed unfettered free speech - ANYWHERE!!
Even the Government can limit speech in certain circumstances - but Twitter isn't the Government - and neither are they a monopoly (or even a regulated provider, like your local TV Station! Twitter is not broadcast over public airwaves)...Your (falsely) perceived 1st Amendment right to post your political views on their (privately owned) platform is running head first into their actual right to do whatever they want with their property!
NOTE: IF Twitter were to require their editorial approval BEFORE allowing content on their site, THEN they would be a publisher....
This ain't that!
-
No duh, the Supreme Court has been clear on free speech.
Are you saying I would be totally within my right to ban you and the rest of the swamp monster?
Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.
Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS. What does it say about you that you are defending them.
-
Are you saying that a private company cannot set out ToS for the platform it has created?
ToS is not editorialising.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
What do you think about the woman Trump talked about in that conversation who led him on so he would buy her a bunch of furniture, despite knowing she wouldn't sleep with him?
So you admit that Frumpy was messing around with women.
This is where you give her the pussy pass.
Nope.
Arianne Zucker was there for most of the conversation and she didn't seem offended, but I guess you are offended for her.
I don't care what Arianne thinks, I know what's on the tape.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
No duh, the Supreme Court has been clear on free speech.
Yes, they have, and a private platform setting out ToS is not a free speech issue.
Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.
Nope, this is ToS, something that the majority of private companies have
Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS. What does it say about you that you are defending them.
Why are you lying?
Do ctrl-f
-
Seems like someone is clueless about what is going on in the world;
https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/
-
Besides the fact that you are such a child that you can't say Trump's name properly, what does it have to do with anything?
You are all butt hurt about how Trumpsupposedly treats women, but you feel it's ok to discount women who don't agree with you.
Typical liberal.
-
@gerggently said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Are you saying that a private company cannot set out ToS for the platform it has created?
ToS is not editorialising.
As I already asked, would I be totally in my rights and you would willingly accept it If I banned you because you are too childish enough to say Trump's name properly?
Nah, you'd whine and we all know it.
-
Is it against ToS here to not talk about the tangerine terror by name?
-
This post is deleted! -
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Seems like someone is clueless about what is going on in the world;
Were you lying or not?
Is my link and screenshot, proving your claim that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" wrong too much for you to comprehend?
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
You have no right to free speech on a private site.
That is your stance.
Pretty much, just like you have no right to free speech when in another person's private home.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login