Why do you feel this urge to show everybody that your level of reading comprehension is about that of a not-so-smart third grader?
WTF did In say about the next comment that included the term "reading comprehension"?
You don’t get to ban the term “reading comprehension” just because it is inconvenient for you when people point out that yours is severely lacking. Grow up.
That's okay. We've all been aware for years that you don't read/watch the articles/videos you post. Titles are enough for you.
Do you have a subscription to the NY Times or know of a way around the paywall?
Did you read the article?
Are you that desperate you post a link to an article you have not read? Not a good start to make a point whatever that point may be. Also, note it is by an independent contributor so it is not “NY Times says…” it is that person’s own opinion. Anyways as others point out, it is not what you think it is. 0/10
They're bad according to the United States Supreme Court in the two NetChoice cases decided earlier this week by 9 to fvcking zero (9-0). Governments in Texas, or anywhere else in the US, can't pass laws requiring ANYONE, including third party businesses, to say stuff or print stuff they don't want to say or print. That's like First Amendment 101. You are an un-American, anti-Constitution blowcase if you feel any differently.
You not only don't read or listen to the article and videos you post, you are constantly uninformed about the basics of what you are even trying to talk about. You're a total joke here, and incredibly you don't realize it. On the spectrum.
How is allowing Social media to censor facts and viewpoints - under pressure from the govt as we found out -- not an attack on free speech?
Laws trying to protect free speech are presented as an attack on free speech!
Can you make an argument or simply name call?
Your name calling reaction is classic for those successfully programmed via state propaganda
Do you really need this explained to you? WTF is wrong with you? NOBODY could be this obtusely fvcked up and confused.
"Social media," which is composed of private businesses, can, like any other business in America, for the most part run their businesses anyway they want. So you're coming at this azz-backwards to begin with when you are wondering and whining about why a government "allows" a private company to do something.
That is especially true when it comes to matters of speech, where the First Amendment prohibits governments -- and governments ONLY -- from abridging free speech. Private businesses can say or print whatever the fvck they want and the government can do jack about it. The Supreme Court effectively ruled (9-0) just this week in the NetChoice cases that the Texas government cannot tell private companies what they must publish. That's a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That ruling did not shock anyone with even junior high level knowledge of the First Amendment.
More incredibly, and whether you will ever realize it or not, you have now flipped flopped -- and within two pages of your own thread, no less -- to trying to advocate the SAME opinion as the NY Times article headline that you were once trying to complain about. You and whoever wrote the article that you posted but never read, both want the government to be able to tell social media business what they must print.
If you read the article you would realize you have no case. Or did you already know that and you are just trolling? In case anyone cares, the point of the article is that big companies claim anything they do is "free speech" and so it should not be regulated.
It's behind a paywall. I cannot read it.
Title is First Amendment is out of control
what a surprise that a m a g a moron doesn't read what he posts
How is allowing Social media to censor facts and viewpoints - under pressure from the govt as we found out -- not an attack on free speech?
Laws trying to protect free speech are presented as an attack on free speech!
Can you make an argument or simply name call?
Your name calling reaction is classic for those successfully programmed via state propaganda
Do you really need this explained to you? WTF is wrong with you? NOBODY could be this obtusely fvcked up and confused.
"Social media," which is composed of private businesses, can, like any other business in America, for the most part run their businesses anyway they want. So you're coming at this azz-backwards to begin with when you are wondering and whining about why a government "allows" a private company to do something.
That is especially true when it comes to matters of speech, where the First Amendment prohibits governments -- and governments ONLY -- from abridging free speech. Private businesses can say or print whatever the fvck they want and the government can do jack about it. The Supreme Court effectively ruled (9-0) just this week in the NetChoice cases that the Texas government cannot tell private companies what they must publish. That's a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That ruling did not shock anyone with even junior high level knowledge of the First Amendment.
More incredibly, and whether you will ever realize it or not, you have now flipped flopped -- and within two pages of your own thread, no less -- to trying to advocate the SAME opinion as the NY Times article headline that you were once trying to complain about. You and whoever wrote the article that you posted but never read, both want the government to be able to tell social media business what they must print.
Very good summation, and vastly better than I could have cobbled together.
But I would like to ask you if we should interpret this action by the Sup. Court as a definitive stance or is it more appropriately an instance in which they determined that the state's courts ruling was not sufficiently supported, and that they (the state courts of Texas and Florida) were being directed to reconsider their ruling, and effectively putting their imposed regulations on social media companies on hold until they did.
Yes, clearly a set back for the states in their attempt to restrict social media's rights to self-regulate, but I think it fall short of a final policy ruling.
In short, this question seems to be a work in progress, though clearly a strong setback for the states attempt to try to regulate social media.
Do you really need this explained to you? WTF is wrong with you? NOBODY could be this obtusely fvcked up and confused.
"Social media," which is composed of private businesses, can, like any other business in America, for the most part run their businesses anyway they want. So you're coming at this azz-backwards to begin with when you are wondering and whining about why a government "allows" a private company to do something.
That is especially true when it comes to matters of speech, where the First Amendment prohibits governments -- and governments ONLY -- from abridging free speech. Private businesses can say or print whatever the fvck they want and the government can do jack about it. The Supreme Court effectively ruled (9-0) just this week in the NetChoice cases that the Texas government cannot tell private companies what they must publish. That's a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That ruling did not shock anyone with even junior high level knowledge of the First Amendment.
More incredibly, and whether you will ever realize it or not, you have now flipped flopped -- and within two pages of your own thread, no less -- to trying to advocate the SAME opinion as the NY Times article headline that you were once trying to complain about. You and whoever wrote the article that you posted but never read, both want the government to be able to tell social media business what they must print.
Very good summation, and vastly better than I could have cobbled together.
But I would like to ask you if we should interpret this action by the Sup. Court as a definitive stance or is it more appropriately an instance in which they determined that the state's courts ruling was not sufficiently supported, and that they (the state courts of Texas and Florida) were being directed to reconsider their ruling, and effectively putting their imposed regulations on social media companies on hold until they did.
Yes, clearly a set back for the states in their attempt to restrict social media's rights to self-regulate, but I think it fall short of a final policy ruling.
In short, this question seems to be a work in progress, though clearly a strong setback for the states attempt to try to regulate social media.
That's how I interpreted it, anyways.
It was impossible to go into any of that with the nitwit. He's currently having trouble figuring out which side of the article's title he thinks he's supposed to be on, so asking him to understand the nuances of a Supreme Court decision would be mentally and emotionally impossible for him.
The Supreme Court NetChoice rulings were not their final ruling on the issue, but if you read the majority opinion, they clearly set forth how they were going to rule in the highly unlikely event the case ever gets back to them. In that highly unlikely event, I think it would be 8-1 with Alito, who has always disliked the First Amendment, dissenting on some conjured up horsesh!t about there being no historical First Amendment tradition for unregulated internet, etc. But even he's sending it back down with the injunctions on the Texas law intact. It's all over except the crying.
Very good summation, and vastly better than I could have cobbled together.
But I would like to ask you if we should interpret this action by the Sup. Court as a definitive stance or is it more appropriately an instance in which they determined that the state's courts ruling was not sufficiently supported, and that they (the state courts of Texas and Florida) were being directed to reconsider their ruling, and effectively putting their imposed regulations on social media companies on hold until they did.
Yes, clearly a set back for the states in their attempt to restrict social media's rights to self-regulate, but I think it fall short of a final policy ruling.
In short, this question seems to be a work in progress, though clearly a strong setback for the states attempt to try to regulate social media.
That's how I interpreted it, anyways.
It was impossible to go into any of that with the nitwit. He's currently having trouble figuring out which side of the article's title he thinks he's supposed to be on, so asking him to understand the nuances of a Supreme Court decision would be mentally and emotionally impossible for him.
The Supreme Court NetChoice rulings were not their final ruling on the issue, but if you read the majority opinion, they clearly set forth how they were going to rule in the highly unlikely event the case ever gets back to them. In that highly unlikely event, I think it would be 8-1 with Alito, who has always disliked the First Amendment, dissenting on some conjured up horsesh!t about there being no historical First Amendment tradition for unregulated internet, etc. But even he's sending it back down with the injunctions on the Texas law intact. It's all over except the crying.
Yeah, I figured that was the case, the first pass to make it visible to the blind.
Thanks for that premonition going forward. I didn't read the actual decision. In all honesty, it took me quite a while just to figure out what was going on with this one and the similar one the week before (June 26).
Fascinating issue - social media is almost like a public utility, so the desire to regulate it like we do public agencies is not so hard to fathom. It will be interesting to see how this gets sorted out in the weeks and months and years to come.
I do appreciate that the social media companies are stepping up to weed out misinformation, offensive content, and attacks on individuals, though.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
word choice
This thread needs to be pinned or permanently displayed somehow as an evidentiary testament to the posting of Newman/Carmines/Onkle. It's a great example, all encapsulated in 3 pages, of his posting throughout this message board over the years. It's all there: confusion, tin foil conspiracies, child logic, stupid rhetorical questions, lying, hypocrisy, flip flopping, misinformation, misunderstanding, not to mention the strange, yet obvious, admission that he doesn't read/watch the articles/videos he posts. He did everything in this one thread.
This thread needs to be pinned or permanently displayed somehow as an evidentiary testament to the posting of Newman/Carmines/Onkle. It's a great example, all encapsulated in 3 pages, of his posting throughout this message board over the years. It's all there: confusion, tin foil conspiracies, child logic, stupid rhetorical questions, lying, hypocrisy, flip flopping, misinformation, misunderstanding, not to mention the strange, yet obvious, admission that he doesn't read/watch the articles/videos he posts. He did everything in this one thread.
