They said it was a mistake, they corrected it, and it's the only example you have despite considerable time having elapsed since so we can only conclude that it's not systemic.
And for the record I could provide you with a bunch of links to left leaning users getting wrongly banned. Fuck ups happen. Trump was banned for a few minutes once, is that part of your conspiracy?
But they do serve Nazis. Lots of them. People complain about it all the time but Twitter will only take action if the Nazis break their ToS, which are extremely lenient.
Then they must respect the first amendment rights of their users.
Do they not respect those rights though? Their ToS are clear that you get banned for abuse, which the Supreme Court has ruled is not protected by the 1st.
Do you have any evidence of systemic (i.e.not isolated mistakes) actions that would be violations of the the 1st from Twitter?
It doesn't matter what they consider themselves. It matters what they are.
This document from the ACLU sets out some examples of "traditional public spaces" where the 1st applies. Note that there are many exceptions, including schools, colleges and national parks. So it's not at all clear that Twitter would be considered a "traditional public space", and in fact it seems pretty unlikely if private spaces like colleges and government owned ones like national parks are not.
The left is more socialist, which means more regulation, state ownership and an economy that works in the interests of the people. Corporations are expected to consider the interests of society and individuals.
So in Twitter's case they would be expected to keep people safe from interference and influence from threats such as Russia, and most socialist governments regulate their democracies e.g. with spending limits and limits on media use during elections.
At the same time they would promote freedom of speech and political discourse because that benefits democracy and therefore society. That means allowing everyone to participate, unless they are trying to stop other people participating.
I think you mean liable for the content, but that's now how safe harbour works. For example the phone company monitors for suspicious activity to prevent abuse of the network, but isn't responsible for what you say on the phone.
In any case they are not checking every post. They rely on users reporting material and a blacklist of banned images (mainly non-consensual stuff), but they don't for example have pattern matching or AI reading the text of every post.
The other common attribute of the SJW is that they are powerful, capable of taking down even the rich and famous who are normally above the law. They control huge multi-billion dollar companies and force them to institute SJW polices, spending vast sums of money on them (e.g. Intel spent $300M on diversity).
So if they do indeed exist there should be plenty of individuals to point to, plenty of evidence of this power, right? Otherwise they are just another Illuminati conspiracy.
The problem with "fuck me and I'll promote you" is that refusal may offend, so the victim will be worried about retaliation. Therefore it is always coercion.
For some people it seems that imagining you did something is the same as you actually having done it... Which is something they frequently claim that SJWs do.
In fact I've noticed a pattern. Anything they claim an SJW is doing is almost certainly what they themselves are doing. Their own minds work that way, so they assume everyone else's do too.
I'd guess not. The US tends to focus on "passive" freedom, as in you have the right to repair it but no-one has to help you do it. There are some exceptions, like cars have to have standard diagnostics systems and manuals/software must be available, but mostly it's just "they can't stop you, but can do anything they like to make it as difficult as possible".
The good thing about tress is that they are cheap and low maintenance.
What we really need is something cheap and low maintenance and more efficient than a tree. Failing that, something expensive but able to remove vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The moderation system is completely fucked up at this point. I'm not even sure how we move forward.
It seems in hindsight that this thing with Green was almost inevitable. What are the chances that someone who acts like that in public isn't even worse in private? Sadly I'm sure he won't be the last.
I'm not completely unsympathetic to the incels... Trans folk have similar issues sometimes. ContraPoints did a video about it, where she noted the similarity between how incels think that the geometry of their head is an impossible to overcome barrier and how say trans women think that aspects of their bodies will prevent them from ever reaching the feminine ideal they want.
On the other hand it's inexcusable that it quickly becomes about hatred and loathing. That's not helping anyone, least of all themselves. You are right though, there is a kind of comfort in it for them.
Discovery is set a decade before the Original Series, at time when people definitely were a lot less perfect and well adjusted than in the TNG era.
I'm surprised that you would make that criticism while praising The Orville though. Much of the humour on that show is about how flawed the characters are, e.g. the captain and his ex-wife's marital problems or the domestic issues Bortas has in multiple episodes.
In fact the whole thing is much more in-your-face about social issues than Discovery was. Discovery barely touched on them, while The Orville did entire episodes about male-only societies and forced gender reassignment, the role of religion in developing civilizations, lots of jokes about sexuality etc.
The Orville was okay for a first season. There were a lot of very common sci-fi tropes in there, almost standard stories. For the second season they will need to be more original.
If there is no agreed definition of SJW, no identifiable group or traits that we can use to make a determination, then the phrase is meaningless.
I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.
It's the ultimate straw man. It both labels your opponent, instantly enraging many listeners and poisoning the well, and lets you make any ridiculous claim to rail against because SJWs are known to be completely ridiculous.
Unless you try to cross a border... Border security in some countries has been known to use people's ripped music and movies against them, usually because they want to steal the device it's on or detain them for some other reason.
Slashdot Mirror
The moderation display seems to be broken... This is score 1, with
20% Interesting
20% Insightful
20% Funny
I guess some meta moderation is not included, but holy crap there must have been a lot of triggered anti-SJW metas today.
It's weird that he still loves Trump, even after Trump fired him, called him "Sloppy Steve" and suggested that he was mentally ill.
His unrequited love is almost tragic.
They said it was a mistake, they corrected it, and it's the only example you have despite considerable time having elapsed since so we can only conclude that it's not systemic.
And for the record I could provide you with a bunch of links to left leaning users getting wrongly banned. Fuck ups happen. Trump was banned for a few minutes once, is that part of your conspiracy?
But they do serve Nazis. Lots of them. People complain about it all the time but Twitter will only take action if the Nazis break their ToS, which are extremely lenient.
Then they must respect the first amendment rights of their users.
Do they not respect those rights though? Their ToS are clear that you get banned for abuse, which the Supreme Court has ruled is not protected by the 1st.
Do you have any evidence of systemic (i.e.not isolated mistakes) actions that would be violations of the the 1st from Twitter?
It doesn't matter what they consider themselves. It matters what they are.
This document from the ACLU sets out some examples of "traditional public spaces" where the 1st applies. Note that there are many exceptions, including schools, colleges and national parks. So it's not at all clear that Twitter would be considered a "traditional public space", and in fact it seems pretty unlikely if private spaces like colleges and government owned ones like national parks are not.
You are both wrong.
The left is more socialist, which means more regulation, state ownership and an economy that works in the interests of the people. Corporations are expected to consider the interests of society and individuals.
So in Twitter's case they would be expected to keep people safe from interference and influence from threats such as Russia, and most socialist governments regulate their democracies e.g. with spending limits and limits on media use during elections.
At the same time they would promote freedom of speech and political discourse because that benefits democracy and therefore society. That means allowing everyone to participate, unless they are trying to stop other people participating.
I think you mean liable for the content, but that's now how safe harbour works. For example the phone company monitors for suspicious activity to prevent abuse of the network, but isn't responsible for what you say on the phone.
In any case they are not checking every post. They rely on users reporting material and a blacklist of banned images (mainly non-consensual stuff), but they don't for example have pattern matching or AI reading the text of every post.
The other common attribute of the SJW is that they are powerful, capable of taking down even the rich and famous who are normally above the law. They control huge multi-billion dollar companies and force them to institute SJW polices, spending vast sums of money on them (e.g. Intel spent $300M on diversity).
So if they do indeed exist there should be plenty of individuals to point to, plenty of evidence of this power, right? Otherwise they are just another Illuminati conspiracy.
The problem with "fuck me and I'll promote you" is that refusal may offend, so the victim will be worried about retaliation. Therefore it is always coercion.
It is also unfair to anyone not asked to fuck.
For once the rest of the world has better access than the US, via Netflix. It will be you guys headed to the Pirate Bay instead of us.
Wait... Are you tell me that blockchains are a scam???
What about all my Dogecoins? Surely they are still worth something!
For some people it seems that imagining you did something is the same as you actually having done it... Which is something they frequently claim that SJWs do.
In fact I've noticed a pattern. Anything they claim an SJW is doing is almost certainly what they themselves are doing. Their own minds work that way, so they assume everyone else's do too.
Wow. I've always been fascinated by Nethack but the learning curve seems steep.
Places with free healthcare tend to have mandatory insurance as well.
I'd guess not. The US tends to focus on "passive" freedom, as in you have the right to repair it but no-one has to help you do it. There are some exceptions, like cars have to have standard diagnostics systems and manuals/software must be available, but mostly it's just "they can't stop you, but can do anything they like to make it as difficult as possible".
The good thing about tress is that they are cheap and low maintenance.
What we really need is something cheap and low maintenance and more efficient than a tree. Failing that, something expensive but able to remove vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The moderation system is completely fucked up at this point. I'm not even sure how we move forward.
It seems in hindsight that this thing with Green was almost inevitable. What are the chances that someone who acts like that in public isn't even worse in private? Sadly I'm sure he won't be the last.
I'm not completely unsympathetic to the incels... Trans folk have similar issues sometimes. ContraPoints did a video about it, where she noted the similarity between how incels think that the geometry of their head is an impossible to overcome barrier and how say trans women think that aspects of their bodies will prevent them from ever reaching the feminine ideal they want.
On the other hand it's inexcusable that it quickly becomes about hatred and loathing. That's not helping anyone, least of all themselves. You are right though, there is a kind of comfort in it for them.
It's got potential if it could be a bit more serious. Looking forward to season 2.
Discovery is set a decade before the Original Series, at time when people definitely were a lot less perfect and well adjusted than in the TNG era.
I'm surprised that you would make that criticism while praising The Orville though. Much of the humour on that show is about how flawed the characters are, e.g. the captain and his ex-wife's marital problems or the domestic issues Bortas has in multiple episodes.
In fact the whole thing is much more in-your-face about social issues than Discovery was. Discovery barely touched on them, while The Orville did entire episodes about male-only societies and forced gender reassignment, the role of religion in developing civilizations, lots of jokes about sexuality etc.
Not that I didn't enjoy all that.
The Orville was okay for a first season. There were a lot of very common sci-fi tropes in there, almost standard stories. For the second season they will need to be more original.
If there is no agreed definition of SJW, no identifiable group or traits that we can use to make a determination, then the phrase is meaningless.
I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.
It's the ultimate straw man. It both labels your opponent, instantly enraging many listeners and poisoning the well, and lets you make any ridiculous claim to rail against because SJWs are known to be completely ridiculous.
Unless you try to cross a border... Border security in some countries has been known to use people's ripped music and movies against them, usually because they want to steal the device it's on or detain them for some other reason.
Easier to blame feminism and #metoo than to look at yourself I guess.
What's really sad is that this belief stops guys improving themselves or getting any help.