|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Such as what?
Stop being stupid on purpose. The contents of telephone conversations can be exposed any number of ways. The point is, it doesn't matter how they catch you, how many times they catch you, or what they catch you doing. Access to a phone is necessary to compete in a fair marketplace. Therefore, the government enacted rules that prevents the phone company from having undue influence on commerce.
The exact same conditions exist on social media. The gov't just needs to catch up.
When someone spots something offense of twitter, and they report it.....to whom do they report the infraction? That's right...to twitter. So if someone was heard saying something un-woke on the phone....to whom might it be reported?
But you can't go around phoning people and saying 'Kill the ____".
Incitement to violence has always been a crime. On the phone, on twitter, everywhere. But if you instead said "I think the world would be a better place of all the _____ had a heart attack tomorrow", that would be totally acceptable, and should be everywhere.
And they can take away your phone if you are found to be harassing people.
Harassment is a crime. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the use of a platform for the exercise of free speech, and how much influence the platform itself should have over that speech.
And who is "they" that you refer to? If you're caught harassing people, the government, bound by the rule of law, and through constitutional due process may issue an order precluding you from using the phone. However, if you call the phone company and ask that a phone be installed, you'll probably get it. It's not the phone company's job check and make sure everyone is complying with court orders. You're responsible for obeying the law. If you get caught using the phone unlawfully you have to answer to the law...not the phone company.
Then they should follow the rules. I depend on my university for my livelihood. That doesn't mean they dont have the right to sack me if I start every lecture with 'Kill the ___.!'
You keep using an incitement to violence as a representative example. It's not really relevant at all. That would be a special case where your actions would violate law, not just school policy. BTW, are you familiar with the Brett Weinstein story?
Your analogy is also shit because there are lots of universities where you could work and have virtually the same opportunity. There's only one YouTube and no viable competition that comes anywhere close. Let's say your buddy David Pakman somehow runs afoul of Googles rules....where does he go then?
Also, they're not banned suddenly. They get three strikes
Not always. Also, if a "strike" is "any bullshit that happens to offend some snowflake", then you could have 300 strikes and still expect to be banned.
|
Reply With Quote
