- 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
0
Posted on 9/22/18 at 10:15 am to JuiceTerry
Missing my point.
Too many people aren't aware of the underbelly of social media. So if someone uses a product that gives them cancer, are you going to say, "shouldnt have used it"?
Of course not, bc they didn't KNOW it was a possibility.
Too many people aren't aware of the underbelly of social media. So if someone uses a product that gives them cancer, are you going to say, "shouldnt have used it"?
Of course not, bc they didn't KNOW it was a possibility.
This post was edited on 9/22/18 at 10:16 am
Posted on 9/22/18 at 10:27 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
No, this is beyond blocking. It's misrepresenting
Fair enough.
I only ask because Verizon argued in court that that it is a speaker when it transmits communications across its network, and therefore net neutrality rules violate its First Amendment rights.
If transmission is free speech.. why would they not have the right to edit, censor, or misdirect? It seems similar to your position that the government taking action against Facebook for censoring XYZ would violate their 1A rights. I don't see very clear demarcation between refusing to display, blocking, deleting, or rerouting and transmission of data.
This post was edited on 9/22/18 at 10:31 am
Posted on 9/22/18 at 10:30 am to Ollieoxenfree99
Are you actually claiming that because people don't bother to read the terms of service of a website they themselves choose to sign up for, that they aren't responsible for abiding by them?
That's a ridiculous analogy between frigging Facebook and cancer
That's a ridiculous analogy between frigging Facebook and cancer
Posted on 9/22/18 at 10:32 am to bmy
quote:
why would they not have the right to edit, censor, or misdirect?
Censoring is one thing, changing the content or redirecting is fraudulent.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 12:00 pm to RazorBroncs
quote:
Google operates in a capitalistic country
This is the most relevant point you made.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 2:41 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
What if a person likes the idea of a social platform but doesn’t like the only one available? Where do they go to get a product that they want but is non existent in the marketplace because the one that they don’t like has closed the door to competition. You say “well quit using it” but there is not another option for consumers who, in this modern age, not only want but often times need the service. We are not talking about a hover board manufacturer here.
I am not entirely sure why some people feel they have an asbolute right to use any company's resources and materials without regard to terms, conditions, policies, or ownership.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 2:53 pm to bamarep
Trump made Twitter and he can destroy them. Before Trump, Twitter was looking for a buyer and NOBODY wanted it. If he were to change platforms, or better yet, start his own, Twitter would be done.
Posted on 9/22/18 at 3:32 pm to bamarep
quote:
Although they are private companies
Facebook and Google/Alphabet are not private companies.
Posted on 9/23/18 at 8:29 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
Facebook and Google/Alphabet are not private companies.
The owners would disagree.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News