Milo returning to Berkeley to give his speech.

[Tsing Tao]

I can't see who you're arguing with, but I admire your will to continue it... This is the way these people go by... When they can't answer without contradicting themselves(which ALWAYS HAPPENS PRETTY QUICKLY), they either start with the ad hominems or they start to talk in circles avoiding the question by trying to sound smart or both... It is always the same thing... It is actually pathetic to see it...

Not that I expect that the poor guy you cornered with logic and reason(something they seem to be allergic to) will change his mind, since what they want is not the pursuit of truth and solve problems, but rather push their agenda, regardless of its catastrophic consequences... But here is a video that illustrates your points:

This is a fascinating video, thanks for sharing. Goes right to the root of the problem. From my viewpoint, the issue is that none of those sites (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube) have been legally classified as a Public Forum, have they? If they had, then this would be an open and shut case. At the same time, by falling back to the "Publisher" angle, they protect themselves from lawsuit on content. Someone should force the issue by suing them for content.

Here4Money is the liberal that won't admit any of these points and continues to obfuscate. He won't watch your video, I'm sure, because it would force him to take a side in the argument. He can't have that.

 

[Wallet]

I can't see who you're arguing with, but I admire your will to continue it... This is the way these people go by... When they can't answer without contradicting themselves(which ALWAYS HAPPENS PRETTY QUICKLY), they either start with the ad hominems or they start to talk in circles avoiding the question by trying to sound smart or both... It is always the same thing... It is actually pathetic to see it...

Not that I expect that the poor guy you cornered with logic and reason(something they seem to be allergic to) will change his mind, since what they want is not the pursuit of truth and solve problems, but rather push their agenda, regardless of its catastrophic consequences... But here is a video that illustrates your points:

Good video.

 

[Cuddles]

Its absolutely relevant. You just don't like the answers. I don't think half of your questions are relevant, yet I do you the common courtesy of answering every single question you pose to me. You don't.

When you say the following:



You make a very relevant point, and I am trying to get to point in return (you know where this is going which is why you are so resistant to answering). If the three social media platforms restrict someone's ability to provide a voice, and they are in business to allow people to have a voice, and they represent a monopoly (you insinuated they did not) then one can make the point that someone is being silenced.

Let's cover our bases:

The internet is not available to all for free. This by default excludes all who can't afford it from "exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression", so that rules it out as a legitimate public outlet.

Now, is you want to join the leftist, make it available to all free of charge, then nationalize all social media we can certainly have a legitimate argument.

If I can afford the bill, I'm able to get free hosting for a website to record my ideas, and Facebook, nor Twitter can do a damn thing about it. Guess what, just like the crazy on his soap box at the park, people can choose to ignore me.

Y'all are just butt hurt that some of your heroes are getting ousted and are distorting the Constitution to bend private companies to your will.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Let's cover our bases:

The internet is not available to all for free. This by default excludes all who can't afford it from "exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression", so that rules it out as a legitimate public outlet.

There is a difference between those lacking privilege because of means (a whole different argument) and those who have access and are denied it. The latter is censorship, the former, not.

Now, is you want to join the leftist, make it available to all free of charge, then nationalize all social media we can certainly have a legitimate argument.

If I can afford the bill, I'm able to get free hosting for a website to record my ideas, and Facebook, nor Twitter can do a damn thing about it. Guess what, just like the crazy on his soap box at the park, people can choose to ignore me.

Y'all are just butt hurt that some of your heroes are getting ousted and are distorting the Constitution to bend private companies to your will.

No one is butt hurt. If Milo can't get on social media, then he can't. The sun will rise. All I did was point out that someone who is a supposed liberal doesn't give a shit that someone can't speak in a public forum for reasons that are obviously political in nature. And the left cheers it (because it isn't a message they want to hear - making them/you hypocrites). As I said in the beginning, I'm old enough to remember when they fought against censorship.

 

[Cuddles]

There is a difference between those lacking privilege because of means (a whole different argument) and those who have access and are denied it. The latter is censorship, the former, not.

As long as we're in agreement that speech on private servers is a privilege and not a constitutional protected right available to all (which the 1st amendment is), then the rest is moot and merely opinions.

It seems you're hell bent on wanting to lump antitrust law as it would apply to "social media" to the 1st amendment somehow.

 

[NeoTrader]

This is a fascinating video, thanks for sharing. Goes right to the root of the problem.

My pleasure.

Here4Money is the liberal that won't admit any of these points and continues to obfuscate. He won't watch your video, I'm sure, because it would force him to take a side in the argument. He can't have that.

So this is who you're talking to... This is typical of him apparently... I remember a while back talking about guns with him and I did the exact same thing with him that you're doing right now(confronting him with facts and logic). Not surprisingly, after avoiding the question several times because he wasn't able to answer it without contradicting himself and his stupid agenda blowing up to pieces, he did what they all eventually do: started with the ad hominems and said he didn't have time to answer it... Then he said he'd block me and even posted a print screen showing he had supposedly done it.
A few weeks ago, to my surprise, he started answering posts of mine and after I responded to them, he again, not being able to defend his position, started with the ad hominems, but this time it was me that REALLY blocked him. The guy is a total waste of time to talk to... Just talks in circles and has no clue whatsoever... It's pathetic and sad.

 

[Tsing Tao]

As long as we're in agreement that speech on private servers is a privilege and not a constitutional protected right available to all (which the 1st amendment is), then the rest is moot and merely opinions.

It seems you're hell bent on wanting to lump antitrust law as it would apply to "social media" to the 1st amendment somehow.

Just occurred to me that you can't see the video Neotrader posted, so this might add some perspective to what you are trying to argue:

You mentioned that there "is no monopoly on Free Speech on the internet", and it is curious you used that phrase (and then ignored my repeated questions on the subject). Facebook, Twitter and Youtube represent a monopoly on social media, by any legal and government accepted terminology (that is, they contain more than 70% of the MAUs - monthly average users in social media, not including messenger apps - content hosters). By banding together and banning someone from posting content, they have essentially silenced that individual. Full censorship. If, as the Prager U case alleges, they are found to be a "Public Forum" then they are absolutely guilty of violations of Free Speech by Section 230, passed by Congress in 1996. If they claim they are not a public forum, but content providers, they open themselves up to lawsuits on content anyone posts there (such as the New York Times, or other publication). They have been arguing they are the former - which subjects them to restrictions on moderating based on content and rules of free speech. You should really read up on it.

Back in 1982 when Bell Telephone was forced to break up because it was a monopoly, it was a privately owned company as well. If Bell Telephone had removed a private citizens right to use the telephone back then, would that also meet your "hey, its a private company, they can do whatever they want" comment? Would you have said "they should go make a telephone company if they didn't like it"?

You're (desperately) holding on to the 1st amendment principle because you know that you are technically correct. You do this a lot. You hold on with all your might to some technicality without considering the morality of the issue. But it is the morality of the issue I'm talking about here, and why I said I was old enough to remember when liberals would have railed against private industry that did this.

Neotrader - I waste my time on these threads because I like collecting examples of how H4M would rather die than admit any error or possibility that his "side" might have made an error. These back and forths tend to begin with me making a comment, him giving a snarky response, me engaging him and him backpedaling the entire time. Its an amusing past time to know I have him cornered.

 

[Cuddles]

Just occurred to me that you can't see the video Neotrader posted, so this might add some perspective to what you are trying to argue:

You mentioned that there "is no monopoly on Free Speech on the internet", and it is curious you used that phrase (and then ignored my repeated questions on the subject). Facebook, Twitter and Youtube represent a monopoly on social media, by any legal and government accepted terminology (that is, they contain more than 70% of the MAUs - monthly average users in social media, not including messenger apps - content hosters). By banding together and banning someone from posting content, they have essentially silenced that individual. Full censorship. If, as the Prager U case alleges, they are found to be a "Public Forum" then they are absolutely guilty of violations of Free Speech by Section 230, passed by Congress in 1996. If they claim they are not a public forum, but content providers, they open themselves up to lawsuits on content anyone posts there (such as the New York Times, or other publication). They have been arguing they are the former - which subjects them to restrictions on moderating based on content and rules of free speech. You should really read up on it.

Back in 1982 when Bell Telephone was forced to break up because it was a monopoly, it was a privately owned company as well. If Bell Telephone had removed a private citizens right to use the telephone back then, would that also meet your "hey, its a private company, they can do whatever they want" comment? Would you have said "they should go make a telephone company if they didn't like it"?

You're (desperately) holding on to the 1st amendment principle because you know that you are technically correct. You do this a lot. You hold on with all your might to some technicality without considering the morality of the issue. But it is the morality of the issue I'm talking about here, and why I said I was old enough to remember when liberals would have railed against private industry that did this.

Neotrader - I waste my time on these threads because I like collecting examples of how H4M would rather die than admit any error or possibility that his "side" might have made an error. These back and forths tend to begin with me making a comment, him giving a snarky response, me engaging him and him backpedaling the entire time. Its an amusing past time to know I have him cornered.

I'm familiar w/the "public forum" case (may have even posted about it at one point) and the argument of content provider vs public forum. The law is clear; they are content providers, changing this designation would open them to liability for the content being hosted in their servers by their users, which would only increase their likelihood to censor content.

A phone company is held to a different standard being a utility (much like a gas or electric company) since banning clients can pose a life threatening situation (can't call for emergency backup). You hypothetical thus does not apply. Again you try to obfuscate the issue of antitrust law to the 1st amendment.

It doesn't matter what the morality is, but what the letter of the law says. Morally we shouldn't be locking up immigrants at the border without due process for long periods of time, but technically we can and so we do (hell, not even sure we can technically).

I'm not even opening the can of worms that "conservative voices are being silenced" which by observation seems like a bunch of BS. I've yet to see a legitimate source/study backing that claim. I will admit that the right winger/alt-righters have the e-grifting game on lock, and thus when violating terms of service are likelier to be the most vociferous when ousted.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'm familiar w/the "public forum" case (may have even posted about it at one point) and the argument of content provider vs public forum. The law is clear; they are content providers, changing this designation would open them to liability for the content being hosted in their servers by their users, which would only increase their likelihood to censor content.

Agreed. If not a content creator, then they are public forums, which opens them up to being subject to Section 230, and banning Milo (or Prager U in this case) is akin to silencing and censoring, and the argument you made about how private companies can do whatever they want no longer holds water.

A phone company is held to a different standard being a utility (much like a gas or electric company) since banning clients can pose a life threatening situation (can't call for emergency backup). You hypothetical thus does not apply. Again you try to obfuscate the issue of antitrust law to the 1st amendment.

Why? A phone company (Bell) is a private entity. There is no 1st amendment wording to subject a private entity that is a utility, and even if there were, one could make the same argument that social media is a utility, through the internet (also a utility). If you want to argue technicalities, you can't suspend the technicality when it isn't convenient. Private companies can do whatever they want - YOU SAID IT. I'm not talking anti-trust law, I'm referring - as I always have - to silencing an individual and whether you support it or not. If you support it in the case of social media platforms and you use the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies, then you have to use that same argument with privately owned phone companies.

It doesn't matter what the morality is, but what the letter of the law says. Morally we shouldn't be locking up immigrants at the border without due process for long periods of time, but technically we can and so we do (hell, not even sure we can technically).

Really? Morality isn't something we should consider when we look at how decisions are applied? Morality isn't a conversation that should ever come into the conversation when we look at how laws affect people? Aren't you always railing against Trump on a number of morality issues? Daily? If you like, I can respond to all of your posts from now on with "It doesn't matter what the morality is, but what the letter of the law says." I would agree wholeheartedly with you that immigration is a moral issue. You don't look at the letter of the law there, do you. You focus on the morality. Unfortunately there is also the morality of subjecting citizens and taxpayers to the financial burden of illegal immigrants, the crime, etc. You ignore that morality and focus on the morality you want. Again, very convenient.

I'm not even opening the can of worms that "conservative voices are being silenced" which by observation seems like a bunch of BS. I've yet to see a legitimate source/study backing that claim. I will admit that the right winger/alt-righters have the e-grifting game on lock, and thus when violating terms of service are likelier to be the most vociferous when ousted.

I'm not sure what you're on about here, but here are the facts: Twitter, Youtube and Facebook represent the monopoly on social media content providers. When they get together and ban someone from all those platforms, they have effectively silenced and censored that individual. Period.

 

[NeoTrader]

Just occurred to me that you can't see the video Neotrader posted, so this might add some perspective to what you are trying to argue:

Neotrader - I waste my time on these threads because I like collecting examples of how H4M would rather die than admit any error or possibility that his "side" might have made an error. These back and forths tend to begin with me making a comment, him giving a snarky response, me engaging him and him backpedaling the entire time. Its an amusing past time to know I have him cornered.

Well, there's a saying here in Brazil (I don't know of any English saying that translates this in this precise situation that has this connotation): "Gosto não se discute"!
Which would be something like: "One does not argue another person's taste"! What is surprising is that these people keep coming for more... They simply cannot get tired of getting the shit kicked out of them!