Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 18:06:52 GMT -5
When you click:
US Congress just passed HR 1865, "FOSTA", seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.
Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.
To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 18:08:29 GMT -5
Floyd, in the past month I've had dinner with six different state officials in my state as a result of A) winning the bitcoin lottery and B) holding a pending patent relevant to growing weed indoors, cheap. They are not as smart or as vindictive as you think they are. And I'm not going to hit up a dot org website on the same computer I move crypto through. I'm not naive enough to do something that stupid.
Facebook? Google? I'm supposed to TRUST their judgement on something like this? LOL! You familiar with Cambridge Analytica?
Facebook is shit, the company is shit, and their concerns about being held accountable are also shit. I trust the politicians more than I trust Zuckerberg or Alphabet at this point, and that's saying something.
At the end of the day, what would I prefer not happen?
A whore being able to do her job even easier, or people being sucked into human trafficking because they trusted the wrong website? I'd say too bad for the whore.
Still conservative on the fiscal side. Right far more often than you are. And still not the slightest bit concerned about FOSTA having any kind of meaningful impact on free speech in the slightest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 18:17:09 GMT -5
Just to prove the point that nothing will happen here because of FOSTA, at all......... These pictures will still be here tomorrow and ten years from now. Because they are all third party images hosted by: Google. You can try to crack on me pointing to having a lawyer in bed next to me, but it gives me the benefit of knowing how the law and the legal system tend to work far better than both of you do. Like I said, nothing is going to happen, nothing is going to change, and nothing of consequence will even be noticed by people who A: have the means to pay for their dating services or B: don't frequent places where trafficking of any kind occurs. This is not an attack on the first amendment, and being conservative doesn't mean you're on the right wing's tip, so shut the fuck up with that bullshit, Floyd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 18:55:40 GMT -5
Floyd, in the past month I've had dinner with six different state officials in my state as a result of A) winning the bitcoin lottery and B) holding a pending patent relevant to growing weed indoors, cheap. They are not as smart or as vindictive as you think they are. And I'm not going to hit up a dot org website on the same computer I move crypto through. I'm not naive enough to do something that stupid. Facebook? Google? I'm supposed to TRUST their judgement on something like this? LOL! You familiar with Cambridge Analytica? Facebook is shit, the company is shit, and their concerns about being held accountable are also shit. I trust the politicians more than I trust Zuckerberg or Alphabet at this point, and that's saying something. At the end of the day, what would I prefer not happen? A whore being able to do her job even easier, or people being sucked into human trafficking because they trusted the wrong website? I'd say too bad for the whore. Still conservative on the fiscal side. Right far more often than you are. And still not the slightest bit concerned about FOSTA having any kind of meaningful impact on free speech in the slightest. It must be sad to be a millionaire playboy but still have the ego of a toddler. I'm totally right more than you are. I don't care what ACLU says about your rights. I bought some cryptocurrency that I forgot I had but pretend I'm a genius now. Lol. I don't care about your rights or the rights if every American because it doesn't affect my bubble. High-larious. Yes. It is attack of the first Amendment as I have pointed out per ACLU, Google and Facebook but yeah, seems you trust the government more than those random companies because Cambridge. Lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2018 20:34:06 GMT -5
I haven't smoked a thing in days dude. You sound ultra limp wristed trying to imply that your tenuous grip on the law is somehow due to me being high.
The ACLU is also using the slippery slope argument, and the bottom line that eludes you is that this will end up being solved via the judicial, not legislative branch.
The ACLU is also one of the most liberal groups out there, but keep right on acting like they are always right. On
I don't trust FB, Alphabet or the gov't. And ego isn't relevant here other than you getting your panties twisted.
And by all means-Feel free to point out to me when FOSTA kills the 1st and the internet.
Before that happens, try learning about how laws get enacted and the process involved. That way you can stop ignorantly freaking out about shit you obviously don't understand.
Or you can let FB, Alphabet and the ACLU dictate to you what's ok and what isn't. It won't touch me in my bubble either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 11:37:55 GMT -5
I haven't smoked a thing in days dude. You sound ultra limp wristed trying to imply that your tenuous grip on the law is somehow due to me being high. The ACLU is also using the slippery slope argument, and the bottom line that eludes you is that this will end up being solved via the judicial, not legislative branch. The ACLU is also one of the most liberal groups out there, but keep right on acting like they are always right. On I don't trust FB, Alphabet or the gov't. And ego isn't relevant here other than you getting your panties twisted. And by all means-Feel free to point out to me when FOSTA kills the 1st and the internet. Before that happens, try learning about how laws get enacted and the process involved. That way you can stop ignorantly freaking out about shit you obviously don't understand. Or you can let FB, Alphabet and the ACLU dictate to you what's ok and what isn't. It won't touch me in my bubble either way. This is very simple Tony: My argument is that this is an affront to the First Amendment. My evidence is this: This legislation is allowing people like Google, FaceBook, and Craisglist to be held accountable for all of the content on their website, even third party providers. Craigslist for example had personal ads that you could hook up with people. Did some people use it for hookers and sex trafficking? Yes. However, the legislation is so overreaching that places like Craigslist have decided that it is not worth the risk to have a personal ads section and took it down. You browsed the website but didn't worry about clicking a link. However, had you clicked the link you would see that Craigslist even specifically mentions the bill as to why they shut down their website.
Your argument is that it does not affect much of anybody. No, it does affect people, I just gave you an obvious example and you turned your nose up at it like it isn't try because you know congressmen and are married to a lawyer. That doesn't matter. The legislation has already had an impact on people. It just hasn't impacted you so you don't care and to that I respond with put your ego away for a minute and realize it is a bad law. It is the TSA, Patriot Act, and drug trafficking laws kind of stupid. A feel good law that doesn't do anything but hurt mostly law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights and could potentially lead to abuse. It is naïve to think it won't be abused. I don't give two fucks who you have dinner with or who you are married to, that doesn't make you immune to getting this one completely wrong, which you have. How can you say it hasn't affected the first amendment rights of people wanting to meet a significant other? Just because you don't go to Craigslist doesn't mean shit. Others have and do to meet people and now they can't because the government enacted an intrusive law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 11:38:39 GMT -5
I don't give a fuck if the freedom that sex traffickers have enjoyed is being diminished. We're not cracking down on the people who are actually engaging in that activity, we are cracking down on the people who are making it easier for them to do so. Because forever, the people who ran the websites that made it easier for these vile individuals to engage in their disgusting Behavior were completely immune to prosecution. But, the personal section in Craigslist is not shut down. I also wouldn't really give a fuck if they decided to shut down plenty of fish.com either. I really have no problem with the government eliminating the freedom of people who are engaging in destructive behavior that hurts other people. I kind of thought that was one of the points of government? Funny you say this...isnt this the same attitude of the people that are suppposedly getting in your way of going all out in the MJ biz? I'm pretty sure it is. And if this is "disgusting behaviour", lol, where is your criticism over Trump fucking a hooker he likely found on a similar site?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 11:40:47 GMT -5
Floyd is 110% in the right on this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 11:42:00 GMT -5
Seriously, just admit you didn't think about that when you first posted your argument. If it has forced websites to get rid of certain pages for fear of litigation, it is obviously intrusive and limiting their first amendment rights. This really is no different than restricting guns and claiming some people use them for bad purposes so other people that enjoy them shouldn't have them. Then I can parade around like I don't give two fucks because I already have the guns I want so fuck everyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 11:51:41 GMT -5
I don't see what the problem with a site like plenty of fish is? Allows busy singles to meet one another. Seems like it shouldn't be any kind of issue?
And couldn't many folks that don't partake in mj also construe it as "disgusting and destructive behavior"? Seems a little prudish and closed minded to think this way imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 14:14:48 GMT -5
I don't give a fuck if the freedom that sex traffickers have enjoyed is being diminished. We're not cracking down on the people who are actually engaging in that activity, we are cracking down on the people who are making it easier for them to do so. Because forever, the people who ran the websites that made it easier for these vile individuals to engage in their disgusting Behavior were completely immune to prosecution. But, the personal section in Craigslist is not shut down. I also wouldn't really give a fuck if they decided to shut down plenty of fish.com either. I really have no problem with the government eliminating the freedom of people who are engaging in destructive behavior that hurts other people. I kind of thought that was one of the points of government? Funny you say this...isnt this the same attitude of the people that are suppposedly getting in your way of going all out in the MJ biz? I'm pretty sure it is. And if this is "disgusting behaviour", lol, where is your criticism over Trump fucking a hooker he likely found on a similar site? No, it's not the same at all. The people in the way of the marijuana retail market are politicians connected to the alcohol industry in my state. When your governor owns a 15% stake in the largest alcohol distributor in your state, there's gonna be some obvious issues with regards to legalizing retail marijuana stores. And we're dealing with them right now. Trump fucked a hooker? I thought she was a porn star? Ok, they are the same thing. But is that the same thing as human trafficking? Because I seem to see a clear distinction between a high end hooker going at it with a billionaire in a consensual way and some stupid teenager getting white vanned because she was naive enough to think that "hot guy" on craigslist actually wanted to have a relationship with her. The disgusting behavior is those who are pulling the white van up and tossing people inside to take them away to a life of slavery. If I didn't make that distinction clear enough, consider the distinction made. Am I one of the only dudes here who's never paid for sex or what? You guys sure are quick to jump on the "disgusting" thing when you think I'm talking about people paying for sex- except that's not what I was referring to- so you kinda got that guilty thing going on....just an observation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 14:15:29 GMT -5
Floyd is 110% in the right on this one. No, he's not. He's actually 110% wrong. And time will prove me right, as usual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 14:26:44 GMT -5
Seriously, just admit you didn't think about that when you first posted your argument. If it has forced websites to get rid of certain pages for fear of litigation, it is obviously intrusive and limiting their first amendment rights. This really is no different than restricting guns and claiming some people use them for bad purposes so other people that enjoy them shouldn't have them. Then I can parade around like I don't give two fucks because I already have the guns I want so fuck everyone else. It has forced Craigslist to get rid of their personal ads.....how in the hell is that a "big deal" exactly? How the hell is that a violation of anyone's "first amendment rights" either? Do you even understand what the first is? Do you have the first clue what it does and does not do? The only thing that is relevant here involves speech. And all it does there is prevent the government from sanctioning you for things you said. That's it. It does not shield companies that turn a blind eye to sex trafficking (which entails one unwilling participant, for those of you who seem to get upset at the idea of me deriding prostitutes) from prosecution. But these companies have been shielded, and it is not a bad idea to bring that practice to an end. I suppose some could try and argue the free press side of things, but just try to get press credentials by claiming you work for craigslist. You'll get laughed right out the door. The thing about my argument is that it's right, but you aren't going to grasp that I'm right until this issue has time to find its way into the court system. Fortunately, some folks have already started down the litigation road and it won't be long before this ends up in front of the SCOTUS. Spoiler alert: The Justices are going to side with me. And I'll have likely forgotten about this by the time they do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 14:39:50 GMT -5
I don't see what the problem with a site like plenty of fish is? Allows busy singles to meet one another. Seems like it shouldn't be any kind of issue? And couldn't many folks that don't partake in mj also construe it as "disgusting and destructive behavior"? Seems a little prudish and closed minded to think this way imo. Yeah, well I have some family experience with PlentyOfFish that says you haven't really put much thought into it at all. And you really gotta get a grip on what I'm talking about regarding disgusting behavior. Smoking MJ is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. There is no correlation, so maybe stop trying to make one? RE: Plenty Of Fish- It is a free dating website- AKA- a site for people too poor to fund a Match.com account or any other site that performs background checks. If you are a shady person with an inclination to preying on the weak, you hit the jackpot with Plenty Of Fish. Thousands and thousands of divorced, single, desperate women. My sister in law fits the above description. She "met" a guy on POF. At Thanksgiving she asked me to perform a background check on him. So I did. Shocker: He was not a real person. His profile picture was of a jacked up white dude. His cell phone was registered to an Asian guy from Boston. His place of work was a shell company. The address he listed is owned by the same Asian man who owns the phone. There were ten different reports of women being robbed by this account. POF did fuck all. And my SIL was/is so desperate that she didn't want to listen to me or read any of the reports that were printed out on this guy. He had already started the process of turning her into either a means for money laundering or turning her into a drug mule. He'd sent her $1500 cash, "because she sounded like she needed it". He did this twice. This is SOP for these people. The next step he had planned was a "trip to Florida". Fortunately for my idiot SIL, my Father In Law stepped in after seeing the reports I had, and her ass was saved by her family. If she went to Florida, chances are she and her 8 year old daughter would have ended up arrested/in the system, enslaved, or dead. I'm sure there are thousands of stories like this. POF is a dangerous website for stupid people like my SIL. I never gave POF much thought until this happened. Then I realized what a cesspool it actually was. My loser Brother In Law also met his now wife on that site. His wife has never had a job in her life and is so useless that she still doesn't have a driver's license. Not having your license in a place like Maine is not the same as being a kid from NYC who never got one. It's a sign that there's something wrong with you. Par for the course with my BIL though. He and his younger sister are the reason we stopped having kids after number 2 arrived. 3 and 4 in my in-law family are complete wastes of skin. (BIL also stole about 10k cash from his own parents house while they were on vacation in Scotland. He's what you find on POF as far as dudes go.) So if that site gets shut down too.......DNGAF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 15:13:22 GMT -5
Funny you say this...isnt this the same attitude of the people that are suppposedly getting in your way of going all out in the MJ biz? I'm pretty sure it is. And if this is "disgusting behaviour", lol, where is your criticism over Trump fucking a hooker he likely found on a similar site? No, it's not the same at all. The people in the way of the marijuana retail market are politicians connected to the alcohol industry in my state. When your governor owns a 15% stake in the largest alcohol distributor in your state, there's gonna be some obvious issues with regards to legalizing retail marijuana stores. And we're dealing with them right now. Trump fucked a hooker? I thought she was a porn star? Ok, they are the same thing. But is that the same thing as human trafficking? Because I seem to see a clear distinction between a high end hooker going at it with a billionaire in a consensual way and some stupid teenager getting white vanned because she was naive enough to think that "hot guy" on craigslist actually wanted to have a relationship with her. The disgusting behavior is those who are pulling the white van up and tossing people inside to take them away to a life of slavery. If I didn't make that distinction clear enough, consider the distinction made. Am I one of the only dudes here who's never paid for sex or what? You guys sure are quick to jump on the "disgusting" thing when you think I'm talking about people paying for sex- except that's not what I was referring to- so you kinda got that guilty thing going on....just an observation. I can't agree with this. While I'm sure the white van situation happens, it's gonna happen regardless. Human trafficking was around before the internet, no? Some porn stars are hookers on the side. I'm pretty sure most are if the right money is offered. One could say that making porn is them hooking to begin with. Separate topic though. No, I have never paid for sex. Waiting until I'm an old lonely single man to go that route. I've discussed this on here before. My weakness with women was always the stoking the ego aspect of it. The prey, the hunt, the bag. Plus I'm scared to death of stds. But let's not start throwing shit like that out T, this isn't to be taken personally. My issue with this is the censorship. The "morals" being pushed upon others. It's very similar to the liberal mindset of "since I personally can't hulk up and make everyone do what I say, the govt is gonna do it for me". Regarding the MJ, no politician is using the moral stance as a blanket? Im assuming not a one has stated "well, I've got my pockets being filled by booze money so, sorry, it's a no go on the weed"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 15:17:12 GMT -5
I don't see what the problem with a site like plenty of fish is? Allows busy singles to meet one another. Seems like it shouldn't be any kind of issue? And couldn't many folks that don't partake in mj also construe it as "disgusting and destructive behavior"? Seems a little prudish and closed minded to think this way imo. Yeah, well I have some family experience with PlentyOfFish that says you haven't really put much thought into it at all. And you really gotta get a grip on what I'm talking about regarding disgusting behavior. Smoking MJ is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. There is no correlation, so maybe stop trying to make one? RE: Plenty Of Fish- It is a free dating website- AKA- a site for people too poor to fund a Match.com account or any other site that performs background checks. If you are a shady person with an inclination to preying on the weak, you hit the jackpot with Plenty Of Fish. Thousands and thousands of divorced, single, desperate women. My sister in law fits the above description. She "met" a guy on POF. At Thanksgiving she asked me to perform a background check on him. So I did. Shocker: He was not a real person. His profile picture was of a jacked up white dude. His cell phone was registered to an Asian guy from Boston. His place of work was a shell company. The address he listed is owned by the same Asian man who owns the phone. There were ten different reports of women being robbed by this account. POF did fuck all. And my SIL was/is so desperate that she didn't want to listen to me or read any of the reports that were printed out on this guy. He had already started the process of turning her into either a means for money laundering or turning her into a drug mule. He'd sent her $1500 cash, "because she sounded like she needed it". He did this twice. This is SOP for these people. The next step he had planned was a "trip to Florida". Fortunately for my idiot SIL, my Father In Law stepped in after seeing the reports I had, and her ass was saved by her family. If she went to Florida, chances are she and her 8 year old daughter would have ended up arrested/in the system, enslaved, or dead. I'm sure there are thousands of stories like this. POF is a dangerous website for stupid people like my SIL. I never gave POF much thought until this happened. Then I realized what a cesspool it actually was. My loser Brother In Law also met his now wife on that site. His wife has never had a job in her life and is so useless that she still doesn't have a driver's license. Not having your license in a place like Maine is not the same as being a kid from NYC who never got one. It's a sign that there's something wrong with you. Par for the course with my BIL though. He and his younger sister are the reason we stopped having kids after number 2 arrived. 3 and 4 in my in-law family are complete wastes of skin. (BIL also stole about 10k cash from his own parents house while they were on vacation in Scotland. He's what you find on POF as far as dudes go.) So if that site gets shut down too.......DNGAF. Because I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, I'll start off by saying my sister is vulnerable to this type of shit as well. Thankfully she's is getting older and a wee bit wiser, but...i understand where you are coming from on this. But just because some people are not smart enough to be prey, doesn't mean we have to shut down a site where others seem to have been meeting one another and making out great because of it. That line of thinking is similar to us trying to nerf the world to protect those that are prone to falling down and running into shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 15:34:04 GMT -5
"But just because some people are not smart enough....." Funny man, but that's a good way to start describing children- and we protect them. POF is the shit of the shit. If you can't afford 20-30-40 dollars a month for online dating then I would think getting your shit together before attempting to spark a relationship would be the intelligent path. It doesn't hurt anyone to either force POF to police their site better or force them to shut down. There's plenty of evidence that plenty of fish is garbage. www.thesun.co.uk/news/4196937/plenty-of-fish-is-revealed-as-the-most-dangerous-dating-app-in-britain-as-investigation-links-hundreds-of-rape-stalking-violent-assault-blackmail-and-child-grooming-cases-to-online-dating/And since I doubt they have the ability to bring the problems within their user base to heel, shutting it down doesn't bother me. Humanity would likely be better off in the long run if the majority of people who met on that site never met, and never had kids. Also- while you might not think the white van thing happens that often- truth is- it does. In Maine alone, a state that has less than 2 million people in it for 9 months out of the year, last year there were more than 100 cases of people being plucked from existence because of craigslist or POF. A whole bunch of them ended up way up north on potato plantations- forced to work. They can't flee, because there's literally 300 miles of woods between them and civilization. It happens so much that most towns in Maine actually set up "Craigslist meeting sites" in the parking lot of the town police station so that you can sell your old shit to people without worrying about getting white vanned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 15:48:24 GMT -5
How exactly has a law that penalizes websites like Craigslist for what someone does illegally with their tool an affront to the 1st Amendment? Lol, how about you ask your lawyer wife or I could break this down for you:
How is allowing the government to sue gun manufacturers for people using their guns to kill people an attack on the 2nd Amendment? That is what you are saying and are being purposefully obtuse, who's having is why you won't admit it. You are trying to play the GQ, I'm so cool and awesome that I don't need a website I think is beneath me so I cosign on a shitty bill my BFF president signed.
News flash. Nobody here has paid for sex but we can see how it is a shitty law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 15:55:32 GMT -5
"It's easy to see the impact that this ramp-up in liability will have on online speech: facing the risk of ruinous litigation, online platforms will have little choice but to become much more restrictive in what sorts of discussion—and what sorts of users—they allow, censoring innocent people in the process .
What forms that erasure takes will vary from platform to platform. For some, it will mean increasingly restrictive terms of service—banning sexual content, for example, or advertisements for legal escort services. For others, it will mean over-reliance on automated filters to delete borderline posts. No matter what methods platforms use to mitigate their risk, one thing is certain: when platforms choose to err on the side of censorship, marginalized voices are censored disproportionately. The Internet will become a less-inclusive place, something that hurts all of us."
Insert [nuh uh, Huff guff, I know more than anybody because reasons] comeback from Tony.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 15:55:35 GMT -5
RE: MJ, no of course they are not saying it hurts their current business interests. They are instead trying to point to the federal illegality of it and the "uncertainty to how this would impact federal contributions to the state". Which, of course, is bullshit. CO and all other states that have legalized before us saw zero federal contribution dollars cut. They ("they" being our governor, who is really the only person in the way at this point) have relied on complete bullshit explanations for why the vetoes keep coming. He doesn't try to use the moral high ground approach because of how tied to medicine Marijuana is in this state. He is an idiot, but he's not stupid enough to give the appearance of attacking people who have medical conditions that MJ helps them deal with. So because of the medical connection, the morality issue is absent from the discussion- which is good.
Doesn't change the fact that he's not going to sign anything that slides across his desk and continue to give BS explanations for why he's doing so. Long and short is that he's holding the industry hostage until he leaves office in about 9 months, but he's never called people who smoke weed disgusting. However he has called human traffickers and heroin dealers disgusting, and I tend to agree with his lumpy ass on that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 15:59:11 GMT -5
Also, nobody is arguing for sex traffickers and hookers not being shutdown. It is the law being too broad and restrictive that will cause issues in the future and it is hilarious that you are like, "that totes wouldn't happen, the government wouldn't do that. I know, I have dinner with congressmen n shit. They are all nice people. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 16:03:27 GMT -5
How exactly has a law that penalizes websites like Craigslist for what someone does illegally with their tool an affront to the 1st Amendment? Lol, how about you ask your lawyer wife or I could break this down for you: How is allowing the government to sue gun manufacturers for people using their guns to kill people an attack on the 2nd Amendment? That is what you are saying and are being purposefully obtuse, who's having is why you won't admit it. You are trying to play the GQ, I'm so cool and awesome that I don't need a website I think is beneath me so I cosign on a shitty bill my BFF president signed. News flash. Nobody here has paid for sex but we can see how it is a shitty law. I don't need to ask my wife about simple legal stuff that involves the first amendment, especially when it seems that I'm being talked at about it by a guy who has a pretty remedial grip on it. There is no correlation between gun manufacturers and websites that turn a blind eye to human trafficking. The first and second are separate amendments because they deal with entirely different subjects. Gun manufacturers are not responsible for how a person uses their gun but websites are responsible for how people use their site. There is a massive disconnect between those two things. A far more apt comparison would be that I as a gun owner AM responsible for how someone else uses MY gun. If someone takes my gun and kills someone with it, I will most certainly be facing criminal charges of my own. Same goes for my car. If I let someone else take my car and they go out and wrap it around a Semi, who's insurance is on the hook? The person driving or the owner of the car? The owner of the car is on the hook. Same should apply to a website that has the potential to cause physical damage or harm to a person. This is not a very difficult concept to grasp. But here you are Floyd, acting like I'm asking you to catch a wet piece of soap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 16:08:09 GMT -5
Also, nobody is arguing for sex traffickers and hookers not being shutdown. It is the law being too broad and restrictive that will cause issues in the future and it is hilarious that you are like, "that totes wouldn't happen, the government wouldn't do that. I know, I have dinner with congressmen n shit. They are all nice people. " God you've got to be the dumbest guy who wants to be a doctor I've ever encountered. The law being too broad or restrictive? Where the fuck do you think they'll sort that out? Oh yeah. The place I told you like seven posts ago that it will be sorted out. The place that was created specifically to sort this kind of shit out. Judicial branch. People who know the law better than anyone here. If they agree that it is too restrictive, guess what happens next Floyd? This amazing thing happens. The law gets either scrapped or re-written to fall in line with the recommendations of the SCOTUS. And I expect that to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 16:23:25 GMT -5
"It's easy to see the impact that this ramp-up in liability will have on online speech: facing the risk of ruinous litigation, online platforms will have little choice but to become much more restrictive in what sorts of discussion—and what sorts of users—they allow, censoring innocent people in the process . What forms that erasure takes will vary from platform to platform. For some, it will mean increasingly restrictive terms of service—banning sexual content, for example, or advertisements for legal escort services. For others, it will mean over-reliance on automated filters to delete borderline posts. No matter what methods platforms use to mitigate their risk, one thing is certain: when platforms choose to err on the side of censorship, marginalized voices are censored disproportionately. The Internet will become a less-inclusive place, something that hurts all of us." Insert [nuh uh, Huff guff, I know more than anybody because reasons] comeback from Tony. That first part is not a violation of the 1st. Because they seem to fail to mention that the people who would be suing them are victims of that site not policing itself adequately. I think Hulk Hogan has an extra thirty million dollars because a certain website decided that they were immune to punishment because they were a "news" website and felt it was completely fine to violate Hogan's privacy. I'd give you a link to the site, but Hogan bankrupted them and forced them out of business, so a link to Gawker.com will just get you an error message. The second part is liberal bullshit about "censorship". Hilarious that they think the internet could ever be defined as an "inclusive place". The internet is the most intolerant place in the world. And quite frankly, some parts of it being reeled in will neither hurt our society nor strip away any liberty that matters. (Because use of the internet is not a Constitutional Right in the first place. Everyone has to pay to be here in some way.) I guess in your mind it's also an infringement on your rights when corporations put up firewalls that restrict you from looking at non work related sites?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 18:41:32 GMT -5
Also, nobody is arguing for sex traffickers and hookers not being shutdown. It is the law being too broad and restrictive that will cause issues in the future and it is hilarious that you are like, "that totes wouldn't happen, the government wouldn't do that. I know, I have dinner with congressmen n shit. They are all nice people. " God you've got to be the dumbest guy who wants to be a doctor I've ever encountered. The law being too broad or restrictive? Where the fuck do you think they'll sort that out? Oh yeah. The place I told you like seven posts ago that it will be sorted out. The place that was created specifically to sort this kind of shit out. Judicial branch. People who know the law better than anyone here. If they agree that it is too restrictive, guess what happens next Floyd? This amazing thing happens. The law gets either scrapped or re-written to fall in line with the recommendations of the SCOTUS. And I expect that to happen. Big fucking deal. It was found to be Constitutional for cops to seize money from drug traffickers yet they are notorious on the I-66 for stealing people's money who are not even drug offenders. Yeah, but da curtz said it was mmkay to do. No shit it will be challenged. Nobody is arguing that point. I guess the Patriot Act wasn't freedom limiting either? Nah, just helped protect us from terrorists, lol. I'm not going to keep going around in circles, you are wrong and there is plenty of evidence I presented that you cannot grasp for some reason and i love how your counter-argument is well that's liberal therfore wrong. Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 19:00:55 GMT -5
"But just because some people are not smart enough....." Funny man, but that's a good way to start describing children- and we protect them. POF is the shit of the shit. If you can't afford 20-30-40 dollars a month for online dating then I would think getting your shit together before attempting to spark a relationship would be the intelligent path. It doesn't hurt anyone to either force POF to police their site better or force them to shut down. There's plenty of evidence that plenty of fish is garbage. www.thesun.co.uk/news/4196937/plenty-of-fish-is-revealed-as-the-most-dangerous-dating-app-in-britain-as-investigation-links-hundreds-of-rape-stalking-violent-assault-blackmail-and-child-grooming-cases-to-online-dating/And since I doubt they have the ability to bring the problems within their user base to heel, shutting it down doesn't bother me. Humanity would likely be better off in the long run if the majority of people who met on that site never met, and never had kids. Also- while you might not think the white van thing happens that often- truth is- it does. In Maine alone, a state that has less than 2 million people in it for 9 months out of the year, last year there were more than 100 cases of people being plucked from existence because of craigslist or POF. A whole bunch of them ended up way up north on potato plantations- forced to work. They can't flee, because there's literally 300 miles of woods between them and civilization. It happens so much that most towns in Maine actually set up "Craigslist meeting sites" in the parking lot of the town police station so that you can sell your old shit to people without worrying about getting white vanned. First off, I guess I should have used the phrase "but just because some adults are not smart enough..."? I don't disagree that it's garbage. I definitely agree we don't need more dummies having kids. I'll even raise you that we don't need the further spreading of STD's. But doesn't mean we force hands and shut it down. That's crazy talk. Also, the "meeting spots" are in our area as well. It's mostly used to have a safe spot for online sales. But that's the internet or even before that, newspaper personals and ads, you never know who you are going to meet and need to be cautious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 20:04:08 GMT -5
God you've got to be the dumbest guy who wants to be a doctor I've ever encountered. The law being too broad or restrictive? Where the fuck do you think they'll sort that out? Oh yeah. The place I told you like seven posts ago that it will be sorted out. The place that was created specifically to sort this kind of shit out. Judicial branch. People who know the law better than anyone here. If they agree that it is too restrictive, guess what happens next Floyd? This amazing thing happens. The law gets either scrapped or re-written to fall in line with the recommendations of the SCOTUS. And I expect that to happen. Big fucking deal. It was found to be Constitutional for cops to seize money from drug traffickers yet they are notorious on the I-66 for stealing people's money who are not even drug offenders. Yeah, but da curtz said it was mmkay to do. No shit it will be challenged. Nobody is arguing that point. I guess the Patriot Act wasn't freedom limiting either? Nah, just helped protect us from terrorists, lol. I'm not going to keep going around in circles, you are wrong and there is plenty of evidence I presented that you cannot grasp for some reason and i love how your counter-argument is well that's liberal therfore wrong. Jesus. If your rationale is "it makes the internet less inclusive" - that's about as snowflake as it gets dude. You can't actually show how anyone's 1st amend rights are being infinged on, because no one's are. And you seem to be cool with folks indirectly profiting off turning a blind eye to human trafficking and sexual assault, etc. because "muh first amends!". I get your broad point Floyd. I just find it infantile because our system of govt is built to deal with precisely these kinds of societal changes. Judicial sorts it. And if you knew that the whole time, all I'd say to you is- stop whining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 20:09:21 GMT -5
"But just because some people are not smart enough....." Funny man, but that's a good way to start describing children- and we protect them. POF is the shit of the shit. If you can't afford 20-30-40 dollars a month for online dating then I would think getting your shit together before attempting to spark a relationship would be the intelligent path. It doesn't hurt anyone to either force POF to police their site better or force them to shut down. There's plenty of evidence that plenty of fish is garbage. www.thesun.co.uk/news/4196937/plenty-of-fish-is-revealed-as-the-most-dangerous-dating-app-in-britain-as-investigation-links-hundreds-of-rape-stalking-violent-assault-blackmail-and-child-grooming-cases-to-online-dating/And since I doubt they have the ability to bring the problems within their user base to heel, shutting it down doesn't bother me. Humanity would likely be better off in the long run if the majority of people who met on that site never met, and never had kids. Also- while you might not think the white van thing happens that often- truth is- it does. In Maine alone, a state that has less than 2 million people in it for 9 months out of the year, last year there were more than 100 cases of people being plucked from existence because of craigslist or POF. A whole bunch of them ended up way up north on potato plantations- forced to work. They can't flee, because there's literally 300 miles of woods between them and civilization. It happens so much that most towns in Maine actually set up "Craigslist meeting sites" in the parking lot of the town police station so that you can sell your old shit to people without worrying about getting white vanned. First off, I guess I should have used the phrase "but just because some adults are not smart enough..."? I don't disagree that it's garbage. I definitely agree we don't need more dummies having kids. I'll even raise you that we don't need the further spreading of STD's. But doesn't mean we force hands and shut it down. That's crazy talk. Also, the "meeting spots" are in our area as well. It's mostly used to have a safe spot for online sales. But that's the internet or even before that, newspaper personals and ads, you never know who you are going to meet and need to be cautious. I don't see shutting down sites that indirectly promote human trafficking by turning a blind eye to be crazy talk. Esp considering I don't really care if the people on those sites can get a date or not, because again: access to online dating isn't a right.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 26, 2018 9:21:44 GMT -5
Tony you missing the point, the liability isn't restricted to sites hosting sex trafficking content. The liability extends to sites hosting any civil/criminal offense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 12:16:56 GMT -5
Tony you missing the point, the liability isn't restricted to sites hosting sex trafficking content. The liability extends to sites hosting any civil/criminal offense. So what you're saying is that the government is trying to hold those responsible for participating in criminal activity to be punished for doing so? That's crazy. We should share this concept with the rest of the world. A government trying to punish criminals. That's some ground breaking shit right there Angelo.
|
|