The response below from the Marr producer says everything you need to know about the BBC. JH-B flagrantly used the ‘paper review’ to spout an aggressive political / Brexit agenda that bore no direct relevance to the subjects being discussed. She went unchallenged and the Beeb think this is fine and will continue.....
b : have to state the explicit reasons (AFAIK gab.ai did not violate anything in the "including" ) . d : fails - because gab.ai is a platform and not a publisher.
If Facebook had hosted the user content that gab.ai are being piled into for, and refused to take it down for "freedom of speech" reasons, then I guess their server hosters could cancel their contract. Guess what : Facebook owns their own server infrastructure. Well I guess Paypal could go "right on" and immediately cancel any contract had with Facebook in the manner they did with gab.ai . No, they would not be that stupid with the revenues at stake. But gab.ai, not a murmur on the Paypal bottom line. Therefore the treatment of Internet "platforms" - actual or theoretical - is not equitable. Similarly, gab.ai have an advantage over Facebook, because the latter can lose reams with advertisers/users voting with their feet (and must act accordingly) . Why should Facebook have to incur the financial costs of policing their users to prevent this, while the mainly crowd-funded financing of gab.ai allows them to escape this ?? Therefore the treatment of Internet "platforms" - actual of theoretical - is not equitable. And when things in commerce are not equitable, then GOVERNMENT takes control. Not companies whose "right on" actions can be paraphrased as follows : Believe in something, especially if it means sacrificing financially next to nothing.
My company has been providing services since 1991. According to contract of services. Once a contract is in effect, then on the occasions of early termination, the terminating party gives notice of termination in writing, stating : 1. the clauses that are being invoked 2. the specific reasons where/when the clause is too general ( "force majeure" being the classic example) .
And the PayPal contract clearly states that they can terminate said contract whenever they want and for no reason. That's exactly what happened. Gab are free to challenge that in the courts if they want to.
b. Take your pick from either of these posts to Gab's official Twitter from the past few months as clear examples of discrimination on Gab's part d. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. - Title 18, Section 4 of the US Code I know this, because I pointed it out to you - twice - when you tried to claim that any comparison could be made between a service such as Facebook/Twitter/Youtube which host their own content and Gab, who are reliant on Third Party hosting and therefore subject to the Ts&Cs that entails - and to refresh your memory, here are the Ts&Cs of former hosts Joeyent Customer shall not post, transmit, re-transmit or store material on or through any of Company’s Services or Products which, in the sole judgment of the Company (i) is in violation of any local, state, federal or non-United States law or regulation, (ii) threatening, obscene, indecent, defamatory or that otherwise could adversely affect any individual, group or entity (collectively, “Persons”) or (iii) violates the rights of any person, including rights protected by copyright, trade secret, patent or other intellectual property or similar laws or regulations including, but not limited to, the installation or distribution of “pirated” or other software products that are not appropriately licensed for use by Customer. Customer shall be responsible for determining what laws or regulations are applicable to its use of the Services and Products. Customer Security Obligation Gab quite clearly violated those terms, so there can be no complaint about Joyent terminating their support - which is presumably like you carried on as if I hadn't posted that once already and instead began obsessing over the PayPal angle...
And if you were still wondering, then it's this bloke that they're talking about: https://apnews.com/877ee1015f1c43f1965f63538b035d3f It's as blatant as anything in Russia or any random banana republic that you might choose to mention.
It's not the first time that the phrase hypocritic twat has been used to describe David Davis, but he now seems to be personally actively seeking it!!
So, later today the ICO report will be published on Banks and the actions of his motley Crew, which (notwithstanding one of the great establishment cover ups of all time) is anticipated to further identify his nefarious criminal activity. However, 24 hours before, there is a leak of another story of Banks dodgy dealings, but of a much lesser nature, coming through Buzzfeed, which appears to potentially deflect attention from the main event. And who looks to be behind this leak? Surprise, surprise, look no further than Aaron Banks....... and let’s see how the Beeb and the main stream media cover today’s events.....
Not entirely sure how good Vanity Fair sources are these days, but if even remotely accurate, this will tear Trumps White House to shreds. If the Mid-Terms go the way that the polls (and Trump himself) appear to predict, the next few weeks may be more positive for the future of US politics. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/west-wing-insiders-brace-for-the-mueller-storm
So it turns out the gang of middle aged twats who thought it was such a laugh to burn an effigy of Grenfell Tower and make Islamophobic comments as they were doing it all hail from the vicinity of Croydon Hmm, I wonder where they got the idea that it's okay to use the Grenfell Tower tragedy as an excuse to do some Muslim bashing from? please log in to view this image
