Jump to content

International Current Affairs (#BidenIn)


wendybr

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, sonar said:

Seems there was a reason Trump put his cronies in positions of power....at DOJ and Pentagon....

.

 

That tweet and accompanying conversation was pretty darn enlightening.

There's a linked tweet from a dude working to identify the rioters. Keep up that good work buddy!

Link to post

Okay. Can someone explain something to me. I never got clear answers out of our long gone comrades but maybe someone else can help me out.

You sign up to a private company to use their services. There are Ts and Cs, which, like Ts and Cs everywhere, have grey areas and weasel words that effectively give them the right to just cancel your account. The service is free but your info is sold to advertisers etc and that's how they make their money.

At some point the private company decides that (probably because of pressure from their customers and clients) they are suspending/deleting your account and will no longer offer you their product (or at least, not for an amount of time).

So.... please explain.

How is this situation a violation of freedom of speech?

You have an agreement with a private company to use their service for free which is no longer valid. That is what has gone on. How is this a violation of freedom of speech?

Edited by marron
Link to post
4 minutes ago, marron said:

Okay. Can someone explain something to me. I never got clear answers out of our long gone comrades but maybe someone else can help me out.

You sign up to a private company to use their services. There are Ts and Cs, which, like Ts and Cs everywhere, have grey areas and weasel words that effectively give them the right to just cancel your account. The service is free but your info is sold to advertisers etc and that's how they make their money.

At some point the private company decides that (probably because of pressure from their customers and clients) they are suspending/deleting your account and will no longer offer you their product (or at least, not for an amount of time).

So.... please explain.

How is this situation a violation of freedom of speech?

You have an agreement with a private company to use their service for free which is no longer valid. That is what has gone on. How is this a violation of freedom of speech?

I think their point is that it’s similar to Australian Consumer Rights, you can’t sign away certain things. Like if you sell me some dodgy products that don’t work and then get me to sign something that “waives” my right to refund, that doesn’t hold.

Link to post

Well well hasn’t the **** hit the fan today. Trump banned from Twitter, google suspending Parler, Apple threatening the same....

Infringing on their rights to incite violence and encourage mass delusion...whilst I see the slippery slope, I also see the need to draw the line somewhere. 
 

It’s not like Trump and his followers have not been warned over and over again. 
 

 

Link to post

That's my point though Cynth.

I don't see how a private company that you effectively sign your rights away to shutting you down is a slippery slope.

A private company is not legislation. It's not a government. It's not an infringement on freedom of speech.

It's like if I wrote letters to the Sydney Morning Herald and then they stopped publishing them me saying that they are infringing on my freedom of speech.

It's like Mack banning me from here and me saying that's an infringement on my freedom of speech.

It's just not an infringement.

 

Unlimited, I don't think that holds up.

I mean, potentially there is some law regarding the Ts and Cs of twitter, that you could take to court, about them suspending your service; maybe there's some grey area in there that you could use to argue that you shouldn't be suspended. But that's not the same issue at all.

And anyway, if you use a service to communicate, the private company that provides that service has the right to suspend it - I mean, I'd be surprised if that was not the case anywhere.

It's like if I don't pay my bills to optus and they suspend my mobile service me complaining about freedom of speech because I can't  make calls.

 

 

Link to post
40 minutes ago, marron said:

Okay. Can someone explain something to me. I never got clear answers out of our long gone comrades but maybe someone else can help me out.

You sign up to a private company to use their services. There are Ts and Cs, which, like Ts and Cs everywhere, have grey areas and weasel words that effectively give them the right to just cancel your account. The service is free but your info is sold to advertisers etc and that's how they make their money.

At some point the private company decides that (probably because of pressure from their customers and clients) they are suspending/deleting your account and will no longer offer you their product (or at least, not for an amount of time).

So.... please explain.

How is this situation a violation of freedom of speech?

You have an agreement with a private company to use their service for free which is no longer valid. That is what has gone on. How is this a violation of freedom of speech?

Its not.

Trump could stand on the whitehouse lawn with a megaphone and continue to pedal his shyte should he so wish, not stopping him.

Totally agree with the bans from social media.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, marron said:

But perhaps these people would prefer that the government steps in to mandate the way these private companies run their business.

They already do under the Racial Discrimination Act and Deformation laws.....and consumer laws.

A lot of those folks are just suffering severe butthurt because there are consequences to what they post.

Edited by sonar
Link to post
4 minutes ago, sonar said:

They already do under the Racial Discrimination Act and Deformation laws.....and consumer laws.

A lot of those folks are just suffering severe butthurt because there are consequences to what they post.

Yep, but that already exists here. I mean, these people complain about such things, but this is seperate - such legislation  is not new ND therefore not a part of the supposed recent slippery slope towards totalitarIan Gov.  (Never mind that putsches, wild conspiracy theories, attempted destabilization  of democratic institutions are all historically the things that are all preludes to totalItalian gov).

Link to post
32 minutes ago, marron said:

Yep, but that already exists here. I mean, these people complain about such things, but this is seperate - such legislation  is not new ND therefore not a part of the supposed recent slippery slope towards totalitarIan Gov.  (Never mind that putsches, wild conspiracy theories, attempted destabilization  of democratic institutions are all historically the things that are all preludes to totalItalian gov).

Tbh marron, I don't know what the definitive answer is.

For me, there are guidlines and consequences to what I say or do on social media ( i've had posts deleted by the moderator here,,,,deservedly, but have moved on with no complaint on my part)  and at the end of the day you either comply with the T&C or you go start your own forum or site.  For those that don't like it....tough titties.

Edited by sonar
Link to post
2 hours ago, marron said:

Governments are not making these decisions.

The private companies that host the services are.

 

 

Hey Marron, don’t get me wrong. I absolutely agree that these platforms are private companies and have the right to suspend anyone who breaches their terms and conditions. I support this and in fact our governments expect it of these platforms that they will not be a party to criminal acts. They do have the responsibility to still act within the law which is good. 
 

I also see though that there are a limited amount of social media platforms and we do put the control into a small number of people (the CEO’s of these companies) which worries me just in terms of concentrated power. That’s all. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, marron said:

Unlimited, I don't think that holds up.

I mean, potentially there is some law regarding the Ts and Cs of twitter, that you could take to court, about them suspending your service; maybe there's some grey area in there that you could use to argue that you shouldn't be suspended. But that's not the same issue at all.

And anyway, if you use a service to communicate, the private company that provides that service has the right to suspend it - I mean, I'd be surprised if that was not the case anywhere.

It's like if I don't pay my bills to optus and they suspend my mobile service me complaining about freedom of speech because I can't  make calls.

Oh don’t worry I agree with you, but it’s what I would expect their argument to me and some sort of Constitutional Amendment whatnot

Looking at it a bit deeper, their First Amendment rights for freedom of speech is only preventing Congress in making laws that stop freedom of speech. Which means any private company can do whatever they want (subject to other laws)

Observing the average intelligence of some of the US nutjobs, they’ll all be like NAH FIRST AMENDMENT NAH NAH YOUR WRONG MY FREEDOMS

Link to post

You have to wonder at the IQ of some folks....."they maced me.........this is a revolution" 

I wonder if they thought ...."oh well....revolutions over now....time to go home for dinner".......FMD. !

Edited by sonar
Link to post
12 minutes ago, sonar said:

Wonder if they thought ...."oh well....revolutions over now....time to go home for dinner".......FMD. !

some of these self called revolutionaries had the look of middle aged men that still live at home with mum and spend far too much time on comps look about them.

Link to post
5 hours ago, sonar said:

You have to wonder at the IQ of some folks....."they maced me.........this is a revolution" 

I wonder if they thought ...."oh well....revolutions over now....time to go home for dinner".......FMD. !

She would like to speak to the revolutions manager.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Davo said:

She would like to speak to the revolutions manager.

I know what these people did is quite serious and people have died and I shouldn't make light of it but their mindset and thinking is just bizarre. It's like they thought it was a picnic outing. I have this picture of them saying to their mums and dads wtte...."we're off to storm the capitol for the revolution and we might be late for dinner, see you when we get back".......

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, sonar said:

I know what these people did is quite serious and people have died and I shouldn't make light of it but their mindset and thinking is just bizarre. It's like they thought it was a picnic outing. I have this picture of them saying to their mums and dads wtte...."we're off to storm the capitol for the revolution and we might be late for dinner, see you when we get back".......

 

Yes it’s bizarre to see the word revolution roll off someone’s tongue like they think it’s a little event they are attending and they are fully expecting to win. 

Link to post

Yeah, I found it odd while it was happening and the rest of the day that they weren't showing the speech. Made me wonder if they'd made decisions not to? A bit weird. I think it was Colbert where I saw it first.

Link to post
10 hours ago, sonar said:

I know what these people did is quite serious and people have died and I shouldn't make light of it but their mindset and thinking is just bizarre. It's like they thought it was a picnic outing. I have this picture of them saying to their mums and dads wtte...."we're off to storm the capitol for the revolution and we might be late for dinner, see you when we get back".......

 

It’s crazy. She spoke to the media on the record, in front of a camera and told them who she was and where she’s from. She then confessed to entering the Capitol building, didn’t leave voluntarily, only because police pepper sprayed her and admitted that the reason she was there was to be part of a revolution to overthrow the government.

Basically gave enough information to identify her, then confessed to crimes that potentially carry decades in prison.

Link to post

But that sort of thing won't happen because Trump is going to pardon them all.

Right now FBI is sending out messages to them purporting to be from Trump asking for their details and the crimes they have committed so he can pardon them. :lol:

Link to post
1 minute ago, marron said:

But that sort of thing won't happen because Trump is going to pardon them all.

Right now FBI is sending out messages to them purporting to be from Trump asking for their details and the crimes they have committed so he can pardon them. :lol:

On Parler.....

 

Link to post

After listening to Pelosi this morning I have changed my mind on the 25th and impeachment.

Only 10 days or so to go, just get to Biden's first day and then look at the many criminal charges that can be brought against Trump.

To do more in the next 10 days will I fear create even bigger problems.

 

Edited by Smoggy
Link to post
  • mack changed the title to International Current Affairs (#BidenIn)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...