Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Twitter purge’ suspends account of far-right leader who was retweeted by Trump; The first amendment is under siege
Topic Started: Dec 18 2017, 11:56 PM (261 Views)
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/18/twitter-purge-suspends-account-of-far-right-leader-who-was-retweeted-by-trump/?utm_term=.8ca6a6b7072d

the account of a top official of a far-right British group whose anti-Muslim videos President Trump retweeted last month, amid the company's move to crack down on content that promotes hate or threatens violence against people or groups.

The implementation of Twitter's new rules was the latest attempt by technology companies to crack down on abuses of their platforms in the aftermath of Charlottesville’s bloody demonstration in August. Though Twitter’s announcement in a morning blog post did not make this connection explicit, companies have been scrambling for months to address allegations that their platforms had become breeding grounds for extremist groups.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Does anyone see the hypocrisy among leftists and these companies such as Google , Facebook, and Twitter that leftists support? The very same leftists who want the government to control the Internet tell user if they don't like Google, Facebook, or Twitter, tune out. Simple right?

I wonder how leftists will react if a a bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple wedding because it goes against the owner's ideology. Oh wait..But Facebook, Twitter, and Google can refuse to carry advertisement bought certain people or groups because of their ideology. After all, we shouldn't tell companies how to run their businesses right?
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 03:22 AM
Does anyone see the hypocrisy among leftists and these companies such as Google , Facebook, and Twitter that leftists support? The very same leftists who want the government to control the Internet tell user if they don't like Google, Facebook, or Twitter, tune out. Simple right?

I wonder how leftists will react if a a bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple wedding because it goes against the owner's ideology. Oh wait..But Facebook, Twitter, and Google can refuse to carry advertisement bought certain people or groups because of their ideology. After all, we shouldn't tell companies how to run their businesses right?
1. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies and can do what they want on their respective domains. If you don't like it, make your own company.

2. Political ideology is not a protected group like sexual orientation, race, and religion. That's the law.
Edited by Eddo26, Dec 19 2017, 03:05 PM.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Just about every business has rules of conduct where, if you violate them, they will turn your business away and, in extreme situations, ban you from their property.

Why is this even an issue? It's not like someone refused to say "Merry Christmas".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Eddo26
Dec 19 2017, 03:05 PM
Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 03:22 AM
Does anyone see the hypocrisy among leftists and these companies such as Google , Facebook, and Twitter that leftists support? The very same leftists who want the government to control the Internet tell user if they don't like Google, Facebook, or Twitter, tune out. Simple right?

I wonder how leftists will react if a a bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple wedding because it goes against the owner's ideology. Oh wait..But Facebook, Twitter, and Google can refuse to carry advertisement bought certain people or groups because of their ideology. After all, we shouldn't tell companies how to run their businesses right?
1. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies and can do what they want on their respective domains. If you don't like it, make your own company.

2. Political ideology is not a protected group like sexual orientation, race, and religion. That's the law.
That's why I pointed out the leftist's hypocrisy. You against this or pro?

So you think sexual orientation is protected but freedom of worship and religion are not?
Edited by Drudge X, Dec 19 2017, 06:24 PM.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 05:53 PM
Just about every business has rules of conduct where, if you violate them, they will turn your business away and, in extreme situations, ban you from their property.

Why is this even an issue? It's not like someone refused to say "Merry Christmas".
Why are leftists up in arms about net nneutrality?

If I pay for first class seating, why should I sit in coach and why should coach passengers deserve first class seating when they pay for coach pricing?
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 06:27 PM
Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 05:53 PM
Just about every business has rules of conduct where, if you violate them, they will turn your business away and, in extreme situations, ban you from their property.

Why is this even an issue? It's not like someone refused to say "Merry Christmas".
Why are leftists up in arms about net nneutrality?

If I pay for first class seating, why should I sit in coach and why should coach passengers deserve first class seating when they pay for coach pricing?
How is that relevant to this thread about someone's twitter account being suspended?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RaiderNation
Member Avatar

drudge loves to move the goalposts.
Will Munny: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

RaiderNation
Dec 19 2017, 08:27 PM
drudge loves to move the goalposts.
Wilmy avoids tough questions.
How is this similar?

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies.
Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter are private companies.

Tell us why is ok to force one industry to conduct its business but not the other.

It's acceptable to force Comcast to provide equal speed to web site owners but not ok to force Google not to discriminate against people because of their ideology. Why? Must be some twisted leftist logic?
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

Reason and debate cannot defeat Jared Taylor or the Alt Right, that’s why they have chosen to censor him.

His ideas are a threat to the illegitimate ruling elite.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 09:02 PM
RaiderNation
Dec 19 2017, 08:27 PM
drudge loves to move the goalposts.
Wilmy avoids tough questions.
How is this similar?

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies.
Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter are private companies.

Tell us why is ok to force one industry to conduct its business but not the other.

It's acceptable to force Comcast to provide equal speed to web site owners but not ok to force Google not to discriminate against people because of their ideology. Why? Must be some twisted leftist logic?
Simple, one is infrastructure and the other isn't.

Would you be okay with your phone company holding up some of your phone calls? Letting some come through as normal, but restricting others to only coming through at certain times, or only so often, and sometimes your communications were greatly slowed down and other times they weren't? Is that what you're really paying for, to have the phone company decide for you what you should receive, how often, and/or how quickly? Or are you paying them to receive a flat service and they shouldn't otherwise be tampering with your communications?

If I pay for 12 mps, I sure as hell don't want them giving me 4 mps service just because I'm watching Netflix and they would prefer I watch whatever streaming video service they're trying to push off on me.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Harambe4Trump
Dec 19 2017, 10:03 PM
Reason and debate cannot defeat Jared Taylor or the Alt Right, that’s why they have chosen to censor him.

His ideas are a threat to the illegitimate ruling elite.
You make a point, he is impervious to reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 10:16 PM
Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 09:02 PM
RaiderNation
Dec 19 2017, 08:27 PM
drudge loves to move the goalposts.
Wilmy avoids tough questions.
How is this similar?

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies.
Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter are private companies.

Tell us why is ok to force one industry to conduct its business but not the other.

It's acceptable to force Comcast to provide equal speed to web site owners but not ok to force Google not to discriminate against people because of their ideology. Why? Must be some twisted leftist logic?
Simple, one is infrastructure and the other isn't.

Would you be okay with your phone company holding up some of your phone calls? Letting some come through as normal, but restricting others to only coming through at certain times, or only so often, and sometimes your communications were greatly slowed down and other times they weren't? Is that what you're really paying for, to have the phone company decide for you what you should receive, how often, and/or how quickly? Or are you paying them to receive a flat service and they shouldn't otherwise be tampering with your communications?

If I pay for 12 mps, I sure as hell don't want them giving me 4 mps service just because I'm watching Netflix and they would prefer I watch whatever streaming video service they're trying to push off on me.

No, it's called hypocrisy.

First, it's against the law for phone companies to purposely dropping or delaying incoming and outgoing calls. These infrastructures cost lots of money to maintain and upgrade. You can't go telling companies to provide you equal service for paying less whereas other customers are paying more. I can't tell McDonald's to give me a big Mac for cheeseburger price. ISP charge its customers different rate for a reason. Therefore it's ludicrous to hear the left demanding equal access for paying lower rates.

Second, I am glad you made the contradictory statement. You are paying for 12 Mbps but you refuse to accept 4 Mbps. I am sure Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu streaming service will say the same. They are paying ISP a premium. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu's customers are also paying the companies a premium for streaming service.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Dec 20 2017, 12:13 AM
Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 10:16 PM
Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 09:02 PM
RaiderNation
Dec 19 2017, 08:27 PM
drudge loves to move the goalposts.
Wilmy avoids tough questions.
How is this similar?

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies.
Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter are private companies.

Tell us why is ok to force one industry to conduct its business but not the other.

It's acceptable to force Comcast to provide equal speed to web site owners but not ok to force Google not to discriminate against people because of their ideology. Why? Must be some twisted leftist logic?
Simple, one is infrastructure and the other isn't.

Would you be okay with your phone company holding up some of your phone calls? Letting some come through as normal, but restricting others to only coming through at certain times, or only so often, and sometimes your communications were greatly slowed down and other times they weren't? Is that what you're really paying for, to have the phone company decide for you what you should receive, how often, and/or how quickly? Or are you paying them to receive a flat service and they shouldn't otherwise be tampering with your communications?

If I pay for 12 mps, I sure as hell don't want them giving me 4 mps service just because I'm watching Netflix and they would prefer I watch whatever streaming video service they're trying to push off on me.

No, it's called hypocrisy.

First, it's against the law for phone companies to purposely dropping or delaying incoming and outgoing calls. These infrastructures cost lots of money to maintain and upgrade. You can't go telling companies to provide you equal service for paying less whereas other customers are paying more. I can't tell McDonald's to give me a big Mac for cheeseburger price. ISP charge its customers different rate for a reason. Therefore it's ludicrous to hear the left demanding equal access for paying lower rates.

Second, I am glad you made the contradictory statement. You are paying for 12 Mbps but you refuse to accept 4 Mbps. I am sure Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu streaming service will say the same. They are paying ISP a premium. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu's customers are also paying the companies a premium for streaming service.
Clearly you don't understand what "net neutrality" was all about. It was about receiving the service you pay for, be that 6 mps, 12 mps, 20 mps, or 60 mps. Not paying for 60 mps and receiving 6 mps when you're downloading or streaming something your provider wants to restrict for it's own reason.

It should be illegal, like it is for phone companies, to negatively tamper with the service a customer is paying for, just because the provider would prefer the customer downloaded or streamed from them.

And that's what this does, it allows the internet provider to provide the service paid for only for its own, or companies that pay it kickbacks, services. And it can throttle back downloads or streams from those that don't pay it kickbacks, EVEN THOUGH I'M PAYING FOR A SET SPEED.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Inquisitor
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 05:53 PM
Just about every business has rules of conduct where, if you violate them, they will turn your business away and, in extreme situations, ban you from their property.

Why is this even an issue? It's not like someone refused to say "Merry Christmas".
Or making a wedding cake?.... :tongue:
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. B
Member Avatar
Member since 2004
Leftists do not permit thought crime.
#BringWilmyBack
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 20 2017, 12:22 AM
Drudge X
Dec 20 2017, 12:13 AM
Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 10:16 PM
Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 09:02 PM
RaiderNation
Dec 19 2017, 08:27 PM
drudge loves to move the goalposts.
Wilmy avoids tough questions.
How is this similar?

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies.
Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter are private companies.

Tell us why is ok to force one industry to conduct its business but not the other.

It's acceptable to force Comcast to provide equal speed to web site owners but not ok to force Google not to discriminate against people because of their ideology. Why? Must be some twisted leftist logic?
Simple, one is infrastructure and the other isn't.

Would you be okay with your phone company holding up some of your phone calls? Letting some come through as normal, but restricting others to only coming through at certain times, or only so often, and sometimes your communications were greatly slowed down and other times they weren't? Is that what you're really paying for, to have the phone company decide for you what you should receive, how often, and/or how quickly? Or are you paying them to receive a flat service and they shouldn't otherwise be tampering with your communications?

If I pay for 12 mps, I sure as hell don't want them giving me 4 mps service just because I'm watching Netflix and they would prefer I watch whatever streaming video service they're trying to push off on me.

No, it's called hypocrisy.

First, it's against the law for phone companies to purposely dropping or delaying incoming and outgoing calls. These infrastructures cost lots of money to maintain and upgrade. You can't go telling companies to provide you equal service for paying less whereas other customers are paying more. I can't tell McDonald's to give me a big Mac for cheeseburger price. ISP charge its customers different rate for a reason. Therefore it's ludicrous to hear the left demanding equal access for paying lower rates.

Second, I am glad you made the contradictory statement. You are paying for 12 Mbps but you refuse to accept 4 Mbps. I am sure Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu streaming service will say the same. They are paying ISP a premium. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu's customers are also paying the companies a premium for streaming service.
Clearly you don't understand what "net neutrality" was all about. It was about receiving the service you pay for, be that 6 mps, 12 mps, 20 mps, or 60 mps. Not paying for 60 mps and receiving 6 mps when you're downloading or streaming something your provider wants to restrict for it's own reason.

It should be illegal, like it is for phone companies, to negatively tamper with the service a customer is paying for, just because the provider would prefer the customer downloaded or streamed from them.

And that's what this does, it allows the internet provider to provide the service paid for only for its own, or companies that pay it kickbacks, services. And it can throttle back downloads or streams from those that don't pay it kickbacks, EVEN THOUGH I'M PAYING FOR A SET SPEED.
No ISP is stupid enough to reduce the speed their customers pay for. If your ISP is doing just that, then you need a new provider. I've never experience that and I been online way before Obama was elected. This was all his imagination to place himself as the "ending the digital divide gap" president.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RaiderNation
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Dec 20 2017, 01:36 AM
Opinionated
Dec 20 2017, 12:22 AM
Drudge X
Dec 20 2017, 12:13 AM
Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 10:16 PM
Drudge X
Dec 19 2017, 09:02 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Simple, one is infrastructure and the other isn't.

Would you be okay with your phone company holding up some of your phone calls? Letting some come through as normal, but restricting others to only coming through at certain times, or only so often, and sometimes your communications were greatly slowed down and other times they weren't? Is that what you're really paying for, to have the phone company decide for you what you should receive, how often, and/or how quickly? Or are you paying them to receive a flat service and they shouldn't otherwise be tampering with your communications?

If I pay for 12 mps, I sure as hell don't want them giving me 4 mps service just because I'm watching Netflix and they would prefer I watch whatever streaming video service they're trying to push off on me.

No, it's called hypocrisy.

First, it's against the law for phone companies to purposely dropping or delaying incoming and outgoing calls. These infrastructures cost lots of money to maintain and upgrade. You can't go telling companies to provide you equal service for paying less whereas other customers are paying more. I can't tell McDonald's to give me a big Mac for cheeseburger price. ISP charge its customers different rate for a reason. Therefore it's ludicrous to hear the left demanding equal access for paying lower rates.

Second, I am glad you made the contradictory statement. You are paying for 12 Mbps but you refuse to accept 4 Mbps. I am sure Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu streaming service will say the same. They are paying ISP a premium. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu's customers are also paying the companies a premium for streaming service.
Clearly you don't understand what "net neutrality" was all about. It was about receiving the service you pay for, be that 6 mps, 12 mps, 20 mps, or 60 mps. Not paying for 60 mps and receiving 6 mps when you're downloading or streaming something your provider wants to restrict for it's own reason.

It should be illegal, like it is for phone companies, to negatively tamper with the service a customer is paying for, just because the provider would prefer the customer downloaded or streamed from them.

And that's what this does, it allows the internet provider to provide the service paid for only for its own, or companies that pay it kickbacks, services. And it can throttle back downloads or streams from those that don't pay it kickbacks, EVEN THOUGH I'M PAYING FOR A SET SPEED.
No ISP is stupid enough to reduce the speed their customers pay for. If your ISP is doing just that, then you need a new provider. I've never experience that and I been online way before Obama was elected. This was all his imagination to place himself as the "ending the digital divide gap" president.
Sometimes it's hard to believe just how ignorant you are of some of the things you 'discuss' (IOW whine about). Have some info on this issue. https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now You'll no doubt disparage it because it disagrees with you.

Will Munny: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

The Inquisitor
Dec 20 2017, 12:29 AM
Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 05:53 PM
Just about every business has rules of conduct where, if you violate them, they will turn your business away and, in extreme situations, ban you from their property.

Why is this even an issue? It's not like someone refused to say "Merry Christmas".
Or making a wedding cake?.... :tongue:
If a business can't conform to fair business practices, as outlined by the law, then it shouldn't be conducting business.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

RaiderNation
Dec 20 2017, 06:54 AM
Drudge X
Dec 20 2017, 01:36 AM
Opinionated
Dec 20 2017, 12:22 AM
Drudge X
Dec 20 2017, 12:13 AM
Opinionated
Dec 19 2017, 10:16 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
No, it's called hypocrisy.

First, it's against the law for phone companies to purposely dropping or delaying incoming and outgoing calls. These infrastructures cost lots of money to maintain and upgrade. You can't go telling companies to provide you equal service for paying less whereas other customers are paying more. I can't tell McDonald's to give me a big Mac for cheeseburger price. ISP charge its customers different rate for a reason. Therefore it's ludicrous to hear the left demanding equal access for paying lower rates.

Second, I am glad you made the contradictory statement. You are paying for 12 Mbps but you refuse to accept 4 Mbps. I am sure Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu streaming service will say the same. They are paying ISP a premium. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu's customers are also paying the companies a premium for streaming service.
Clearly you don't understand what "net neutrality" was all about. It was about receiving the service you pay for, be that 6 mps, 12 mps, 20 mps, or 60 mps. Not paying for 60 mps and receiving 6 mps when you're downloading or streaming something your provider wants to restrict for it's own reason.

It should be illegal, like it is for phone companies, to negatively tamper with the service a customer is paying for, just because the provider would prefer the customer downloaded or streamed from them.

And that's what this does, it allows the internet provider to provide the service paid for only for its own, or companies that pay it kickbacks, services. And it can throttle back downloads or streams from those that don't pay it kickbacks, EVEN THOUGH I'M PAYING FOR A SET SPEED.
No ISP is stupid enough to reduce the speed their customers pay for. If your ISP is doing just that, then you need a new provider. I've never experience that and I been online way before Obama was elected. This was all his imagination to place himself as the "ending the digital divide gap" president.
Sometimes it's hard to believe just how ignorant you are of some of the things you 'discuss' (IOW whine about). Have some info on this issue. https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now You'll no doubt disparage it because it disagrees with you.

I am not arrogant enough to fix something that was not broken to begin with. We know what was the result when the government fixed the telephone industry. But I do see why leftists are on board with this. You measure your lives achievement based on the number of boogeyman you created.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply