They have a narrative about not allowing misinformation? I don’t know if narrative is the right word? Is having a policy about not allowing misinformation acceptable?
Well, that’s the thing, they didn’t fold. The NY Post is still banned until a newspaper changes or deletes a story they don’t like. I think they allow discussion of the story, I don’t know if they allow people to link to the story now. I am not on twitter or Facebook, thank God.
Off topic a bit, I don’t really know why people are attracted to those sites anyway. I have never yet one person who’s life is better or are happier after joining those sites. It’s usually the opposite. It seems like an unending fog of misery. Like willingly dipping your toe into hell just to see if it’s really hot.
I dunno. i only have 1 facebook friend and I’m a member of this group:
It’s hilarious.
Oh, that’s pretty awesome… lol
Almost makes me want to sign up just for that. Save for that there is a 100% chance I would get caught up in the vortex of the rest of it.
1 Like
That’s right, because there is actually a civil cause of action for “offensive commentary”, meaning defamation. There is no civil cause of action for “selective suppression, manipulation, and editorializing” content.
If Section 230 didn’t exist and you were to sue an internet provider any way you wanted, there is no cause of action for censorship of your speech. Period. Full stop. Defamation? Yes. Slander? Sure. Libel? Of course. Censoring your speech? Doesn’t exist.
Section 230 does not create new avenues of civil liability - it just immunizes internet providers from existing ones (like defamation by way of some other content provider’s defamatory statement).
But it’s all a moot point anyway, because Section 230 covers all that stuff:
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. As usual.
2 Likes
Come on, Comrade. You’ve don’t know what you’re missing out.
Seriously, it gets stale and repetitive after a while. Go check out the comments section for the Russian national anthem youtube video for something similar.
1 Like
Actually, you wouldn’t be using comrade much. Comrade (tovarish) is the equivalent of Mr./Sir so while you would have used it to refer to someone in a third person or in a formal setting (comrade so-and-so), it would have been used rarely in direct communication with colleagues at work, for example.
You would have addressed your work colleagues and even the immediate superior by a name - patronym combination. That’s the reason for excessive comrade-ing in HBO’s Chernobyl - International audiences would have found this odd take on familiarity as immersion-breaking (it’s a great show btw, 10/10 for conveying the culture, verbiage and visuals).
1 Like
I agree. GoT was a big let down. Chernobyl made having HBO for the 6 month stretch (or so) worth it. Probably the best show I have seen recently.
1 Like
You don’t know that it has to be tried, that’s the point I was making the whole time. And your still missing the point, so I don’t see the point in discussing it with you further. I am not talking about civil protections under 230. But what’s the use, your just looking for a ‘gotcha’ moment, so you can feel good about yourself for 2 seconds.
Oh yeah, like when you didn’t think there was massive amounts of evidence regarding problems with mail-in voting? Like you were so certain of that and was subsequently buried in a mountain of evidence. Your arrogance and ad hominems don’t mean shit to mean. You just sound like a small, little pissed off person with low self-esteem. Talk to me like a man or don’t talk to me. I don’t care either way.
1 Like
lol… Like Comrade DeBlasio!
I heard the Soviet National Anthem in a movie and found myself humming it the next day. I couldn’t get that damn song out of my head. It’s catchy.
1 Like
Pot, meet kettle.
But you’re a bitch and that’s how everyone should talk to you. Including when you talk to yourself.
No, I do know that - there’s no such thing. You have no cause of action for that. And no damages. It doesn’t exist. You might want it to - but say Section 230 didn’t exist, and if Twitter censored your content, you have no case for legal injury.
We don’t live in a world where you just get to make stuff up and us have to entertain it as true. You’re wrong - own it.
Bottom line, Section 230 protects Twitter from a suit by the NYP for “censoring” their views, but even if it didn’t exist, the NYP has no grounds on which to sue. Can’t change reality.
If I did, you wouldn’t understand the language.
In any event, you’re just mad because you were wrong and got called on it. We’re all wrong sometimes - why not just own it and move on?
Oh well.
1 Like
It’s beautiful. Seriously. The melody, harmonies and shit. It’s really beautiful even though I don’t understand a single word but I like instrumental music so it’s cool.
But the comments section is hilarious. They keep replacing phrases that start with ‘I’ with “We” and “My” with “Our”. LMAO-ed first time I read it but it gets repetitive after a while.
1 Like
I always liked this reinterpretation of the anthem as it perfectly conveys the underlying menacing tone usually hidden behind orchestral grandeur.
2 Likes
Nice. They kept the great harmonies.
Sad to say, the China national anthem sucks. i think they ripped if off from some French song or something but the musical arrangement just sucks balls.
So, you’re just an asshole for the hell of it? Gotcha. Thanks for the warning, I will keep it in mind.
If you were anywhere near the very mild point I was making instead of creating a strawman and running to the moon with it, I would have no problem. You still refused to understand what I was actually saying, which actually wasn’t a big deal. It’s clear you still do not understand it. You spent most of the time telling me how superior and smart you are and failed to prove it. And it was such a minor point too. But I am not going to say I am wrong if I am not, though. It’s not my fault you ran away with an imaginary point.
Oh I know! Why don’t you dig into the forums 6 years ago where you can find where I was once wrong about something.
You just decided to interjected yourself into a conversation so you could show what a big dick you have.
I hope your being sarcastic? Perhaps my history with it taints my opinion of the “song”. I do wonder what they are saying. “Oh great Soviet Union, with your poverty and gulags! We love you from our co-ore! We kill all decenters and mur-der their chlidren all for the land that we lo-ove!”
Are these the words?
I got it stuck in my head again, damn it!
1 Like