US Election

[Tobes]

Oh, dear, Tobes!

You're showing your ignorance yet again!

I will give you chance to redeem yourself, as I am a kind bloke.

You do know what the purpose of the Senate Committee hearing is, don't you?

I couldn’t give a monkey’s about a Senate Committee.

I was stating a simple fact. They can do as they wish with content posted on their platforms. If someone wants to cry foul and try and claim bias, they’re ultimately pissing in the wind & merely playing to their crowd.

No toothbrush required.

 

[Peej]

The democrats calling for better control of these platforms.
That’s just a way they can use it without censorship for the next four years. My god, imagine if trump could use it for ranting over the last four years.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Maybe democrats haven’t been banned in the numbers pro trump republicans have as they don’t break the rules.

Apart from that being complete and utter bollocks, again, it isn't of any real relevance to the hearing - other than to prove that ****erberg and the rest do actively discriminate along partisan lines.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

I couldn’t give a monkey’s about a Senate Committee.

I was stating a simple fact. They can do as they wish with content posted on their platforms. If someone wants to cry foul and try and claim bias, they’re ultimately pissing in the wind & merely playing to their crowd.

No toothbrush required.

Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.

 

[Peej]

Please copy and paste folks, especially @Hoddle is a god and sisu.

Don’t forget tomorrow starts the new Not606 rule where they can use your photos. Don’t forget Deadline today!!! It can be used in court cases in litigation against you. Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from today Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in not606 privacy policy. I do not give not606 or any entities associated with not606 permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to not606 it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute. NOTE: nor605 is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. @brb NOR ANYONE ELSE DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES

 

[Tobes]

The democrats calling for better control of these platforms.
That’s just a way they can use it without censorship for the next four years. My god, imagine if trump could use it for ranting over the last four years.

It’s not about censorship imo, it’s about regulation.

All of those platforms claim they are merely ‘walls’ and not publishers. So therefore any content posted isn’t their responsibility legally. They’ll claim they try and monitor and remove illegal content, but they’re not trying anywhere near hard enough. For the simple reason that to manage it better would cost more money.

It needs more regulation to ensure they try harder, otherwise they won’t.

 

[Peej]

Apart from that being complete and utter bollocks, again, it isn't of any real relevance to the hearing - other than to prove that ****erberg and the rest do actively discriminate along partisan lines.

Absolute tosh. They filter and sensor by the rules they setup. Up until losing the election trump was free to spout hate, **** and lies on twitter. He will soon be ****ed off, an irrelevant prick.

 

[Peej]

Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.

It’s not about censorship imo, it’s about regulation.

All of those platforms claim they are merely ‘walls’ and not publishers. So therefore any content posted isn’t their responsibility legally. They’ll claim they try and monitor and remove illegal content, but they’re not trying anywhere near hard enough. For the simple reason that to manage it better would cost more money.

It needs more regulation to ensure they try harder, otherwise they won’t.

you didn’t see the obvious piss take with the democrats wanting to control social media and how tromp has been heavily censored on twitter.....


No problem pal.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

It's discrimination if the police arrest criminals, but don't also arrest innocent people.

 

[Tobes]

Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.

Only it isn’t. This is an issue I’m really clued up on, for reasons I won’t divulge to a 2 bob, back street conveyancer like you.

The content posted can be deleted as they see fit. Users can be sanctioned or banned, as they see fit. As they’re private companies providing a free service to users. A bit like this site. That’s literally it. Feel free to quote the law to me on this subject if you wish to challenge that assertion, otherwise shut the **** up.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Numbers don't mean ****.

Are you being stupid on purpose?

So, you're telling me that if the data from Twitter and Facebook shows that not a single Democrat had his account locked or his posts banned, and that every single Republican who reported on an issue of seminal importance in the election did, that that would have no effect on the Senate's case to remove those platform's rights under section 230?

Is that your genuine assertion?

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Only it isn’t. This is an issue I’m really clued up on...

Oh do shut up!

You are utterly clueless, as is evident from the stupidity of your comments.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Are you being stupid on purpose?

So, you're telling me that if the data from Twitter and Facebook shows that not a single Democrat had his account locked or his posts banned, and that every single Republican who reported on an issue of seminal importance in the election did, that that would have no effect on the Senate's case to remove those platform's rights under section 230?

Is that your genuine assertion?

No. It's a stupid strawman that you've made up.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Whether or not Trump is re-elected, there is going to be a massive shake of social media and Big Tech's vice-like grip on it.

Watch this space.

 

[Peej]

Are you being stupid on purpose?

So, you're telling me that if the data from Twitter and Facebook shows that not a single Democrat had his account locked or his posts banned, and that every single Republican who reported on an issue of seminal importance in the election did, that that would have no effect on the Senate's case to remove those platform's rights under section 230?

Is that your genuine assertion?

A bit extreme. If not one single democrat supporter wasn’t banned for clear rule breaking and every republican supporter was banned for same rule breaking then yes.
But at this time there is no data/correlation you can show to prove this is the case.

now Mr Facebook has seen my wall post so he can’t use my data. But sure as hell he will be able to have people legally access all this. Data on people he has.

 

[Tobes]

Oh do shut up!

You are utterly clueless, as is evident from the stupidity of your comments.

Only, you’ve failed to actually counter a single thing I’ve actually posted. All you’ve done is to reply on multiple occasions calling me ignorant and stamping your little feet.

Offer something actually substantive.....go on.

I’ll wait

 

[Peej]

Whether or not Trump is re-elected, there is going to be a massive shake of social media and Big Tech's vice-like grip on it.

Watch this space.

fingers crossed they will tighten how a sitting president incited riots and voter suppression via twitter. Supported racist groups etc, etc.

 

[Peej]

Night fellas, play nice.

one less day with trump at the wheel.

 

[Peej]

Under a trump presidential reign.

You must log in or register to see media

what the ****!

 

[Hoddle is a god]

USA withdraws from Afghanistan.

Strange that it's not being covered by MSM.

Could it be that the biased hateful ****ers don't want there to be any credit given to him?

 

[Hoddle is a god]

A bit extreme. If not one single democrat supporter wasn’t banned for clear rule breaking and every republican supporter was banned for same rule breaking then yes.
But at this time there is no data/correlation you can show to prove this is the case.

Where would you draw the line?