Pudendum wrote:I never made such a claim, and don't have any reason to be drawn into your weird fantasy.

Twitter should be obliged to provide a platform for Muslim terrorists to plan their next attack.

Spearthrower wrote:edophile network - should we be more concerned about the loss of their RIGHT to post on Twitter?

Pudendum wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:edophile network - should we be more concerned about the loss of their RIGHT to post on Twitter?

Your fantasies get more and more telling each time you go for another.

I simply said they were biased, and showed examples. Then you started freaking out about weird sex stuff, acting clownish, and refusing to answer a simple question about what you believe.

To remind you what I asked -
Are you proposing that you believe, that twitter is not biased against republicans?

Play your fantasy games all you like. I have no obligation to participate.

I'll just carry on assuming you can't acknowledge twitters political bias. And that it is somehow very upsetting to you.

That leaves me taking Elon's word over yours, but with you slavering about weird sex fantasies, I'm glad to.

I don't recognize it as a 'free speech' issue. Free speech is the idea that governments can't censor you, not that everyone's obliged to give you a platform to speak whatever crap you want.

And those platforms have every imaginable right to choose what is or isn't given voice on their platforms.

You could go old school and imagine a sign board on a local shop allowing people to put up job vacancies, advertise their business, look for lost puppies and the like... but they've got every right to refuse to put up a sign advocating pedophilia or genocide, for example.

Each and every such platform has the right to choose who it caters to. Those who are doing it for profit as a business want to accommodate the greatest number of customers possible, appeal to the widest slice of the potential market. It would thereby be stupid and self-damaging for them to give space to content which pleases a tiny number of people but drives away much more sizeable numbers of customers. A form of natural selection would kick in and such places would shrink to represent their tiny little slice of the population, while those more regulatory spaces would increase - there's no spooky agenda in this, just market forces.

This isn't anything like an infringement on their free speech - those people are still entirely free to go set up their own platform to cater to whatever nasty things they want. No one's telling them they can't think these things, say these things, or believe these things... only that they can't use this particular piece of public space to do it.

There's no profit to be made in a 'free speech platform' because, as I've pointed out, what some small fraction of people consider to be free speech makes the environment hostile, unpleasant, undesirable for such a significant number of people that it would be a self-defeating business model; my platform would guarantee it would always remain small, while other platforms which regulate topic and content would do better, thereby becoming more popular, thereby getting more customers, thereby making more money.

The problem with the idea of free speech unrelated to freedom from government censorship is that so many staunch advocates of it think that free speech means they get to say the most inane, counterfactual, hateful bullshit they can think up, but just as in the real world, most people just don't want to hang around people like that past adolescence. These kind of notions of free speech are not suitable for kids, not for families, not for most adults - really, they tend to attract a subset of teenage to late twenties males, so it's not like it's a particularly compelling business model.

And that's not even considering the content creators. Assuming you want a platform to express your passionately held anti-government views, for example, you might consider a 'free speech' platform to be a great place, but if you found yourself lined up next to pedophiles, Incels, and white supremacists, you might consider them to cause your own views to look delegitimized by association.

Here's the reality as far as I am concerned: the vast majority of websites offering platforms already extend ample freedom of speech allowing people to talk about very nearly all topics that are of interest to the vast majority of people. However, some peoples' version of free speech is just simply unpleasant and no one wants to hear those views, not because they're too fragile, or too close-minded, but because those ideas don't merit so much as a limp wank. Last year I was asked to join a 'serious debate forum' only to find that the predominant topics of 'serious debate' were 'men are superior to women' and 'women's only role in society is to have babies'... I feel no compulsion to stop those people from saying what they think, but I have even less compulsion to engage them or listen to their juvenile idiocy. I do not have any interest in being remotely associated with them any more than I would do in the 'real world'.

Spearthrower wrote:

Pudendum wrote:What incoherent clown told made that claim?

See the grammar breaking down again, folks?

mindhack wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Pudendum wrote:What incoherent clown told made that claim?

See the grammar breaking down again, folks?

This deserves its own thread perhaps.

Spearthrower wrote:So, a person who is incapable of answering whether

Twitter should be obliged to provide a platform for Muslim terrorists to plan their next attack.
Twitter should be obliged to provide a platform for someone planning to and then gunning down school children.
Twitter should be obliged to host rape videos.
Twitter should be obliged to host snuff films. (a reader's question)

Is probably not a person who's really competent or credible enough to be talking about what Twitter should or shouldn't host, eh?

Apparently, Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.

But if I am mistaken about that, he can tell me and I will immediately retract and apologize for my mistake.

Oh, and the question you keep dodging with your sextalk...

...

Spearthrower, you want to go from there to some weird violence or sex fantasies.

Do you think they are biased against republicans?

Spearthrower wrote:

mindhack wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Pudendum wrote:What incoherent clown told made that claim?

See the grammar breaking down again, folks?

This deserves its own thread perhaps.

It's Morton's Demon expending so much energy his brain's overheating trying to toss out distractions.

Greg the Grouper wrote:This whole charade reminds me of League of Reason. Maybe we'll see OP discuss genetic predispositions to crime, next. A couple videos of police killing people. Who knows.

Spearthrower wrote:Any time you feel like putting your money where your big flapping mouth is then do feel free to address the actual point at hand, not all this desperate flailing around trying to distract.

Apparently, Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.

But if I am mistaken about that, he can tell me and I will immediately retract and apologize for my mistake.

Do you think they are biased against republicans?

Spearthrower wrote:So as you won't refute it: why do you believe that Twitter is obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack?

Spearthrower wrote:

Do you think they are biased against republicans?

I don't know

Twitter can choose who it provides its service to - it's not a necessary utility that must be made equitable to all, it's just a single site for messaging among thousands on the internet. They can be bias if they want to - I don't care. It's entirely up to them, and their choices will impact their market share and custom base like any business.

See how easy it is?

So over to you:

Apparently, you believe that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.

But if I am mistaken about that, please do tell me and I will immediately retract and apologize for my mistake.

Pudendum wrote:Still think the reaction to it is pretty telling though. That rotten tomatoes site is a nifty bellweather. 0 'critics' review it, but it gets 90%+ positive ratings from regular viewers.

Pudendum wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Any time you feel like putting your money where your big flapping mouth is then do feel free to address the actual point at hand, not all this desperate flailing around trying to distract.

Apparently, Pudendum believes that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.

But if I am mistaken about that, he can tell me and I will immediately retract and apologize for my mistake.

It's because you have beclowned yourself. In part by declining a simple question about the subject.

Do you think they are biased against republicans?

But keep avoiding sharing your perspective. We have Elon's words on it, in case your wisdom remains unavailable.

Spearthrower wrote:So as you won't refute it: why do you believe that Twitter is obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack?

Well, if I believed that, I might engage with your fantasy of violence.

But if I didn't, I might just laugh at your clowning.

Spearthrower wrote:

Do you think they are biased against republicans?

I don't know

Wow! Was that so hard?

Since you are ignorant of the subject, I'll assume the guy buying it is correct, and that you don't know.

Twitter can choose who it provides its service to - it's not a necessary utility that must be made equitable to all, it's just a single site for messaging among thousands on the internet. They can be bias if they want to - I don't care. It's entirely up to them, and their choices will impact their market share and custom base like any business.

So you don't understand their obligations to their shareholders, or those purchasing advertising from them, or their claims in front of US lawmakers.

Fair enough. But don't pretend you do. It makes you look kind of clownish.

See how easy it is?

So over to you:

Apparently, you believe that Twitter should be obliged to host Muslim terrorists planning an attack, rape videos, snuff videos, and pedophile networks.

But if I am mistaken about that, please do tell me and I will immediately retract and apologize for my mistake.

You are mistaken. Or deliberately obtuse.

I claimed that their banning of one world leader over his claims of election fraud, while they leave on another calling for genocide, showed unfair treatment.

Political bias.

You don't need to be very smart to see it, but it still seems very hard for the beneficiaries to admit.

Maybe it's because you don't have any deep knowledge of twitter, US politics or the history of tech giants testifying about their bias, or lack of it.

It's understandable. I haven't even seen the movie that sparked this discussion yet.

Still think the reaction to it is pretty telling though. That rotten tomatoes site is a nifty bellweather. 0 'critics' review it, but it gets 90%+ positive ratings from regular viewers.