- 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: law suit against the cake baker filed. "Won't bake a cake for Satan's birthday"
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:08 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:08 pm to ShortyRob
Do you believe social media should not be able to moderate their own product?
Do you believe someone outside of their purview should control how they moderate their own product?
Should the government be involved?
What sliding scale should be implemented as far as the moderation? IE, where is the arbitrary line drawn by the outside moderators?
Do you realize how ridiculous it would be to support something like this?
Do you believe someone outside of their purview should control how they moderate their own product?
Should the government be involved?
What sliding scale should be implemented as far as the moderation? IE, where is the arbitrary line drawn by the outside moderators?
Do you realize how ridiculous it would be to support something like this?
2
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:10 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:Yes. I think they should be able to moderate their own product with the obvious caveat that since they wish to do this, congress needs to remove the immunity congress gave them when it was assumed they would NOT.
Do you believe social media should not be able to moderate their own product?
quote:Nope
Do you believe someone outside of their purview should control how they moderate their own product?
quote:Only insofar as stated in two responses up in this post.
Should the government be involved?
quote:I don't believe in govt moderation.
What sliding scale should be implemented as far as the moderation? IE, where is the arbitrary line drawn by the outside moderators?
quote:Yes.
Do you realize how ridiculous it would be to support something like this?
Now that you're done with your incorrect assumptions, carry on.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:13 pm to ShortyRob
I do not have the time, nor the inclination to search the web for all this crap so, if anyone knows, thanks for helping out.
1. First lawsuit was brought by the commission based on complaint (think it is same person who complained). Supreme Court says no and sends back and that ends that.
2. Another complaint to Commission and they sue again. Baker countersues and they agree to go their own way.
3. THIS CLUSTER!. Is this a private suit by heshe or is this another complaint to the commission and they sued?
I cannot imagine the commission getting involved in anything forcing the baker to make a cake.
If private, I am not sure there are grounds for satan making cakes. Also, this would be frivilous and subject both the person and the lawyer to sanctions (assume this will be moved to federal court).
If this is the commission, let me know. I find that very hard to believe. And, if not the commission, does heshe have any standing?
1. First lawsuit was brought by the commission based on complaint (think it is same person who complained). Supreme Court says no and sends back and that ends that.
2. Another complaint to Commission and they sue again. Baker countersues and they agree to go their own way.
3. THIS CLUSTER!. Is this a private suit by heshe or is this another complaint to the commission and they sued?
I cannot imagine the commission getting involved in anything forcing the baker to make a cake.
If private, I am not sure there are grounds for satan making cakes. Also, this would be frivilous and subject both the person and the lawyer to sanctions (assume this will be moved to federal court).
If this is the commission, let me know. I find that very hard to believe. And, if not the commission, does heshe have any standing?
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:15 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Congress assumed they wouldn't moderate their products?
congress needs to remove the immunity congress gave them when it was assumed they would NOT.
So after answering all of those questions, you basically agree with my message.
You simply hate the messenger
Strange little guy
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:17 pm to dafif
quote:
2. Another complaint to Commission and they sue again. Baker countersues and they agree to go their own way.
3. THIS CLUSTER!. Is this a private suit by heshe or is this another complaint to the commission and they sued?
I believe these two suits were both filed by the same guy.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:19 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
The baker should not have to associate with the people who want to use the baker to host their dumb ideas See how easy that is
Wow, you do seem to have a functioning brain after all.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:20 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:Well, the argument goes that these sites needed immunity from being sued because of shite posted on their platforms. IE, they basically took the position of, "hey man, that's just people posting.......WE aren't associated with their shite".
Congress assumed they wouldn't moderate their products?
quote:No.
So after answering all of those questions, you basically agree with my message.
You see, the baker, or anyone really saying, "hey, I don't want to CREATE something on your behalf" is quite obviously different than simply being an online platform. It's absurd to even pretend to not see that.
However, even with that obvious difference, I'm very fundamentally against govt agencies "moderating" because those agencies, over time, almost certainly would make YouTube, Facebook and all the others look like overt freedom lovers.
My simple caveat on these platform is that RIGHT NOW, they have it both ways. They are saying, "hey, we are moderating this shite because we don't want to be a part of its propagation"............."but we shouldn't be able get sued over shite that IS propagated on our sites because we can't help it".
Nope. They can't have both. They need to pick one. Either they can't help it, so stop fricking moderating.......or you can........so the govt needs to eliminate their protection.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:23 pm to Esquire
quote:
No surprise someone that can’t comprehend context clues thinks Twitter doesn’t have competitors.
So another person who can't answer simple questions about context...but sees "clues" everywhere.!
Bless your heart.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:25 pm to Dale51
This is really all solved by removing the immunity these platforms have.
I guarantee you that they stop moderating with A frickING QUICKNESS if you remove their immunity.
Because they let a LOT of shite get posted right now that would have them literally BATHING in lawsuits.
Frankly, I like them having their immunity. But, if they're going to misuse it, take it back.
I guarantee you that they stop moderating with A frickING QUICKNESS if you remove their immunity.
Because they let a LOT of shite get posted right now that would have them literally BATHING in lawsuits.
Frankly, I like them having their immunity. But, if they're going to misuse it, take it back.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:32 pm to ShortyRob
quote:They can say that all they want
."but we shouldn't be able get sued over shite that IS propagated on our sites because we can't help it".
There are lawsuits against Facebook as we speak
quote:Should Facebook not be allowed to have its own terms of service? Should Facebook be forced to host every single thing that's uploaded onto its site? Just because they are a "platform", it doesn't mean they can't moderate it
You see, the baker, or anyone really saying, "hey, I don't want to CREATE something on your behalf" is quite obviously different than simply being an online platform. It's absurd to even pretend to not see that.
Is TD a platform or a publisher?
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:32 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
What sliding scale should be implemented as far as the moderation?
If evaluating the ones banned, or shadow banned, show all to be of one general ideology..like conservatism..then its not a "sliding scale" of unbiased moderation, it's targeted censorship.
Don't you agree?
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:35 pm to Dale51
quote:Who's in charge of determining that?
If evaluating the ones banned, or shadow banned, show all to be of one general ideology..like conservatism..then its not a "sliding scale" of unbiased moderation, it's targeted censorship.
What ideology is spam?
What ideology is porn?
What ideology is selling firearms?
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:40 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:Like I said. They can. But, if their position is that they can and will police up content on their site, then congress needs to remove their protection.
Should Facebook not be allowed to have its own terms of service?
They gotta pick one and trust me, they WILL FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL to prevent that.
quote:I can't speak intelligently to TD's status legally in terms of what I post.
Is TD a platform or a publisher?
If TD can be sued for what I post, then, TD should quite obviously have every right to decide what it allows to get posted.
HOWEVER, if legally speaking, TD CANNOT be sued for what I post, then TD should probably be careful about purely ideological moderation.
For the purposes of this discussion, you shouldn't focus on what Facebook or Twitter block. You should look at what they CONTINUE to allow that they almost certainly would have to police up in a non-immune environment.
Interestingly, I think their argument FOR immunity is correct. I think them having to ACTUALLY police up their shite is likely a beyond monumental task and an unreasonable one at that.
Alas, it's not my fault they seem intent on steering their dicks under their feet.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:42 pm to FooManChoo
Perfect way to put the two together. The root of the issues come from Satan.
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:43 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Who's in charge of determining that?
What ideology is spam?
What ideology is porn?
What ideology is selling firearms?
You're missing the point again.
Whatever stance on issues that are most commonly associated with a liberal/left ideology or an conservative/right ideology there are, and only one sides standing on those issues is banned, then it's not moderating it's censoring.
What don't you understand about this observation??
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:44 pm to ShortyRob
quote:What protection? I just told you they have tons of lawsuits against them right now
But, if their position is that they can and will police up content on their site, then congress needs to remove their protection.
What crime, in your mind, are they guilty of?
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:45 pm to Jjdoc
Satan's a big homosexual cocksucker! I knew it all along!
frick you, Satan!
frick you, Satan!
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:50 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:Read this for background.
What protection? I just told you they have tons of lawsuits against them right now
From NPR so, you won't catch fire.............SECTION 230.
This post was edited on 6/14/19 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:51 pm to Dale51
quote:Let's say they are doing that.. What's the crime? Wouldn't that mean the bakers are censoring?
Whatever stance on issues that are most commonly associated with a liberal/left ideology or an conservative/right ideology there are, and only one sides standing on those issues is banned, then it's not moderating it's censoring.
Because I think the bakers shouldn't have to be involved with spreading ideas or symbols etc that they don't want to
It's a fundamental, consistent ideology
Posted on 6/14/19 at 1:53 pm to Jjdoc
People are going to have to start baking their own cakes soon.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News