I want to come live in your timeline.
Sadly, no. No, they don’t.
And we need to be honest with ourselves that history has shown that the consequences of leaving them alone and hoping they will “just go away” are both costly and horrific. Of course, history has also shown that trying to quash an idea to stop it from spreading can also be costly and horrific.
Speaking of death, about that fragment of a poem you quoted,
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller; (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984) was a German theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is best known for his opposition to the Nazi regime during the late 1930s and for his widely quoted poem “First they came …” The poem has many different versions, one of which begins “First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Communist,” and concludes, “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
{…}
For his opposition to the Nazis’ state control of the churches, Niemöller was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1938 to 1945. He narrowly escaped execution. {…}
WWII would like a word with you about “bad ideas dying on their own”…
You’re right - I should have been clearer. I meant speech. I would rather read someone’s bigotry as opposed to them hiding behind a slogan or bumper sticker to fool the people. I worked for people who were like this - they’d LIKE all liberal causes (as did I), always had yard signs, but wouldn’t pay a living wage, treated people awfully based on their color, etc.
Speaking of liberalism, I can’t understand this awful idea of a for-profit health care business… I’ve lived in other parts of the world and I always received great health care, despite the US not having reciprocity with those countries. If an Australia gets hurt, the US charges, but me, an American, didn’t pay a dime… Canada pays much less, and everyone is covered. The insurance companies are such leeches.
Huh? In many nations, citizens and legal residents get a card. With that card, and sometimes a small co-pay, they get medical attention.
Non-residents are not normally afforded the same protection.
Canada does not pay for hospital or medical services for visitors . You should get health insurance to cover any medical costs before you come to Canada .Jan 30, 2020
[
If I get sick or have an accident while visiting Canada, will the …
https://blog.ingleinternational.com/canada-welcomes-visitors-but-not-their-health-bills-what-you-need-to-know-to-make-sure-your-visitors-are-insured/
Toronto, Canada – From the Rockies to the Red River, it’s springtime in Canada, and that means an influx of visitors from around the world. According to the Canadian Tourism Commission, Canada received over 17 million visitors in 2014, and each one was vulnerable to the costs of the Canadian health care system.
“Health care in Canada is expensive,” says Robin Ingle, Chairman of travel and health insurance group Ingle International. “There are common misconceptions about the Canadian health care system and what it will and won’t cover—a non-resident visitor can expect to pay up to $5,000 per day in a hospital and double that for the intensive care unit,” explains Ingle.
Ingle defines a visitor as anyone visiting from another country, new immigrants, and returning Canadians. All visitors within these categories require travel and health insurance while in Canada, and it is up to them to make appropriate arrangements prior to their departure… If you’ve been out of the country for a long period, you have to reapply for coverage when you return. The same process applies for new immigrants and international students studying in Canada. These groups are vulnerable to the high costs of Canadian health care during this wait period, which depending on the province, is at least 3 months.
In Australia , they may cover emergency care- or they can send you a bill. It depends. Actually, the same here in the uSA- if you are poor, you can get emergency care at a County hospital.
In general, you cant just fly to a nation with socialized medicine and get free health care.
Here’s a pretty good compendium of writings regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and all the propaganda around it. I’d recommend it to a number of posters in this thread.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the
Sure they can. Assuming your facts are true, they just did it! They certainly can’t claim to be a 100% free zone, where anyone can say what they want though.
This is a “public” forum. You don’t need to pay to be a member. The moderators can delete posts and block people, though, since this is space that is “owned” by Straight Dope. A sports stadium is a “public” place, but not really. It’s actually a privately-operated facility, and if you don’t follow their rules they can kick you out. A bank is seen as “public” because they serve millions of customers, but they can demarket you as a customer if you don’t follow their rules.
Facebook is not “public”. Twitter is not “public”. Those are corporations owned by people, and you agreed to follow their rules when you made accounts with them. Furthermore there are laws about posting personal information without consent (social media that uses real names is about posting your personal information with your own consent). If you don’t like it, you can create your own social media website. Of course, you will 1. own the site, so it’s still not “public”, and 2. it won’t be nearly as popular as Facebook or Twitter.
Well, at least it will have one thing going for it! 
pssssst. You misspelled “a good start.”
That’s not really what’s at stake here.
Part of the reason Trump is not allowed to block his critics on Twitter is because the courts have ruled that the space functions as a public forum.* That means that blocking critics becomes a 1st Amendment violation.
The conservasphere is angling to frame Twitter/Facebook as “not a public forum” so that Trump (and others) are allowed to block critics as they please.
Then you roll it into the desired repeal of Section 230 of the CDA, and the dream is to force online entities to be liable for everything any user posts OR to force them to abandon any and all attempts at curation.
*my understanding is that they have ruled that Trump’s Twitter account functions a public forum due to the unique way he uses it. Not that the site as a whole functions as one.
Internal company documents were provided to investigative reporter Matt Taibbi
Here are Taibii’s Twitter threads:
Good to see Ro Khanna doing the right thing:
I voted for him; he’s a member of Congress in my district.
The entire incident was stupid. The fact that it happened over a complete nothingburger of a story should give people pause. What happens when the story is real?
The story becomes a lot less scandalous when you accurately describe it as “private citizen asks a private corporation to stop sharing nude photos of his child that were stolen from him and uploaded without his permission”.
Ro Khanna said very nearly the same thing. He added the word “principles,” which makes the argument clearer–it’s not the 1st Amendment, per se, but the ideas that made it so important in the first place. Musk should have phrased things better, but he’s making the same point.
As for the referenced tweets, talking about the content is missing the point. The moderation standards should be enforced consistently. That cannot be the case when some people have better access to the moderators than others.
This is not really even about right vs. left. RW politicians also had direct access to moderators, though less so than the left. The common public has no access. That should be concerning to all.
As for the laptop story, the moderators simply ignored their own guidelines. Normally they would wait for some declaration by law enforcement of “hacking,” but they didn’t do so here. Their own people couldn’t understand the decision.
Considering that the tweets in question are in and of themselves illegal, I’d say the content is a lot more relevant than who was involved in it being taken down.
Yes, the tweets should have been taken down (assuming they were all of the same thing). But it’s wrong when some people can get things done immediately just because they have an inside contact, while others cannot. Double standards are bad.
Well, it’s certainly a good thing that that will definitely never happen under the current Twitter regime.
It would be nice if they posted the tweet that was allegedly in violation.
Looking around for similar suspensions, I saw complaints about Garland Nixon being suspended as well. Ok, but here was the notice:
Yeah, I’m not exactly shocked that they’d suspend someone over tweeting “Personally strangle some Palestinians” even if it was written as a Blinken to-do list. Without the context of who Garland Nixon is, it could easily be read as “Secretary Blinken, this is what your to-do list should be”, in which case it would very much be a call to violence, and a particularly nasty one at that.
Gym Jordan: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SEE HUNTER BIDEN’S COCK!
So, uh, this is the big exposè? Is John Durham lurking somewhere? This is embarrassing.
From “Release the Memo!” to “Release the Dik Pix”, a history of Republican info opps, 2017-2022, Gym Jordan, Devin Nunes (authors), Penguin Press, (c) 2024