The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment
-
@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.
-
And yet you clearly didn't read my link.
They refused to remove the child porn because it didn't violate their TOS.
They only removed it because Homeland security got involved.
Why are you trying to defend their shitty action?
-
Is you quote "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" wrong or not?
Did you not read the link or screenshot I sent?
Have them again:
So, to ask you again, does Twitter explicitly say that child porn is not acceptable on their site or not?
Did you lie, or were you uninformed?
-
So, you would happily accept being banned from here, without ever complaining about it, because you have no right to free speech here?
Of course, you wouldn't. You would whine to everyone how I'm a fascist because I banned you because of your free speech.
-
LOL, you are a pathetic clown.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
LOL, you are a pathetic clown.
I noticed you're avoiding the question.
-
Ah, so because they wrote it down, that means that is how they enforce their rules.
You're an idiot.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Ah, so because they wrote it down, that means that is how they enforce their rules.
You're an idiot.
No, that's not my stance at all.
Learn to read.
You said that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" and I proved you wrong with reference to their ToS.
-
Yet, I showed that they won't remove kiddie porn unless Homeland Security demands they do.
So again, just because you are special needs. Just because something is written down, doesn't mean they follow that.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Yet, I showed that they won't remove kiddie porn unless Homeland Security demands they do.
So your statement that "Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS" remains false.
Got it.
So again, just because you are special needs. Just because something is written down, doesn't mean they follow that.
I never said it did.
Learn to read.
-
Yet, Twitter told that family that they would not remove it because it didn't violate their TOS.
GOT IT?! Of course, you don't because you're a liberal.
It's funny that you feel the need to fight me over this when Twitter's actions are extremely disgusting in this case.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Are you saying I would be totally within my right to ban you and the rest of the swamp monster?
YES! This is a "private" server! You actually DO ban people on this site - regularly! For violating your terms of service (e.g.: not having multiple accounts). If you want to ban me (or delete my posts), you are within your rights to do so! (If I understand the ownership of this site, @joker is the actual owner, although you are an administrator. If you are not a paid employee of the site owner (person or corporation), you may not be protected -- I'd want to look that up! LOL)
Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.
No, publishers EDIT and CHOOSE content BEFORE it is published.
That was my example earlier:- IF Twitter required that you submit your tweets for their approval, THEN they would become a publisher.
- Fox News is responsible (liable) for anything that they publish on their website, FoxNews.com... FYI: Fox News is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for libel because they posted falsehoods about them on their site. They have no Section 230 protection for the edited (e.g.: published) parts of their site! They are claiming other protections, but that is another discussion...
- Fox News is not responsible for anything that readers post in the comment section of their website (I don't know if you can comment on FoxNews.com, but you get the idea). That content is protected under Section 230! The posters are "3rd parties")
- However, the actual people who post content are themselves potentially liable: Section 230 only provides legal coverage for the site-owner! (So, if Rudy Giuliani posted falsehoods about Dominion Voting Systems on the Fox News site - as a "reader comment" - he could be held liable, but FoxNews.com would be protected by Section 230. *That may be a bad example, because I don't know if Rudy is paid by Fox News - if he is, then both he AND FoxNews.com share liability for libel claims against them.)
Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS.
I honestly don't know anything about Twitter's TOS - I'm not a subscriber.
What does it say about you that you are defending them.
It says I understand the protections of Section 230 better than you do? LOL
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