Political rants

@momoichi Well there is an interesting thing that the government can do with these companies. Now Facebook and all that other garbage has Section 230 protections since they are considered a platform. With these protections they are not held liable for what is said on there if something illegal were to happen. There is an issue though, if these companies go in and selectively edit, ban (outside of TOS) or modify people's accounts then they very much risk losing their Section 230 protections as they will be considered a publisher. So if Facebook gets their Section 230 protections revoked then that will leave them legally liable for everything that is posted on their website. Generally speaking Facebook is not really at risk of this. Twitter on the other hand is since they have been banning people that are not in violation of TOS, not banning people in violation of TOS and have been caught modifying people's accounts without their consent. This means that they are inching closer to having their Section 230 protections revoked and becoming a publisher instead of a platform. Once that happens then Twitter will be buried in lawsuits and forced to close, a day that I would celebrate personally.

I would love twitter to be shut down. Twitter is a hub for not only child pornography which they do nothing about. But a space for blue checkmarks and sjw to spout nonsense. That being said twitter being shut down will just be replaced to the next best thing and the cycle repeats as they sell out.

Are you nuts? One word to settle this whole thing. Parler. Also EVERY SINGLE PRO TRUMP THING I SAW DURING THE ELECTION HAD SOME FACT CHECK WARNING ON IT. EVERY SINGLE ONE. The fact checks wouldn't contend with the point being made but usually some misc point that has nothing to do with the article at hand. Also one of the people in charge of hiring the 3rd party fact checkers was a hardcore Hillary Clinton supporter. For example I saw one about election fraud about the ballot boxes in Georgia. Because the article being fact checked said it was suitcases it got a fact check warning. THAT IS JUST STUPID. The point was ballots were being brought in under odd circumstances from an outside source. What they were being brought in with is irrelevant. But oh no, Democrats can scream Russia Russia Russia for 4 years just fine. PS didn't even vote for Trump, 3rd party. I just watched from the outside. It is amazing how you all can't even see how bias 99% of media actually is. Also there are several logical issues with that article you posted. 1. How does it define censor? Just removing the page, suppressing it, ect? 2. The actual number of pages don't matter if they are being censored. 3. They only post a graph for the number of pages, not the outreach and how that reach is gotten. It can still be suppressed and get more outreach based on how it is shared. Especially if you have overall more conservative pages anyways. 4. They added 4chan in there, really? Ok this is obviously to skew the numbers and justify their statement. That pretty much de-legitimizes their entire point. What an absolute joke of an article. Did you even read it? 5. "a small number of conservative users routinely outpace their liberal rivals and traditional news outlets in driving the online conversation" Please tell me you see the flaw with this so I don't have to point it out? 6. The article fails to mention how much of the reach was fact checked or marked fake news, the article provides pointless data sets and makes illogical conclusions off of them, and the article includes sources like 4 chan or traditional media which is laughable to justify it's numbers. The article discredits itself every time it mentions how it comes to a conclusion by adding in something that obviously shouldn't be added in. In short your article just proves our point about bias. Stats and statistics are only as good as their definitions and how you get them. amby ラミ @momoichi

@dyadka_yar yeah trump was blackmailing those sites with that fact, which was really fucked up. these sites CANT be held responsible for the content or they couldn't run/would have to have even heavier restrictions/banning what instances does twitter ban outside of tos? @hell_hound7 everywhere is a hub for cp, that's the nature of fucked up people. (if you hate cp you should REALLY hate facebook. its an absolute hive for that shit) i like twitter, i get to follow mangaka and artist i like as well as cute animals and political memes. idk why everyone hates it so much lol, only time i get irritated is by dumb shit keem tweets and i enjoy that sense of irritation cause I'm weird seems people are just over reacting like they always do with social media platforms (except facebook, that is actually making people disbelieve scientists and radicalizing people with Q anon bullshit which is incredibly harmful)

My main issue with twitter is its where SJW reign supreme. Its the main hive for cancel culture. Yes twitter provides a platform for other things such as sexworkers fighting to be treated fairly by governments or like for certain causes and charities as well as promotion of a brand and networking. But there is also the nasty side to twitter. They can crack down on insurrectionists cuz its damaging to our country but not CP and human trafficking. I dont use any social media besides this. I think FB is predatory, twitter is a cesspool, and insta well idk its kinda cliquey

its deff a hive for cancel culture and some pretty cringey people, but just don't follow anyone you find cringey or any sjw left wing types its simple, its meant to be used to follow celebs and shit anyways i could recommend some Japanese artists to follow as well, free content every morning (best way to keep up to date with new manga releases as well) off topic, but are sex workers not treated fairly by the government? I'm kinda 50/50 on legalizing prostitution because its just a fact that it increases sex trafficking. so i think more sex workers would be hurt by this than helped, but I'm open to being proven wrong they cracked down on insurrectionists because it violates there inciting violence rule. not saying they follow there rules to a t or don't make exceptions when they shouldn't or other shitty things, but from what iv seen there fairly good with there policy enforcement. wheres your proof that they don't crack down on cp and human trafficking? didn't they do a huuuuge purge of a hashtag that had cp links? and again facebook is THE site for cp, it is the number one hot spot. i like insta, idk why people hate that one so much. its so drama free. i follow bjd makers and wildlife accounts. its wholesome af.

If a company decides it wants to heavily police it's content, it would seem sensible to hold them accountable for the content they do allow on the platform. If a company takes a laissez-faire approach to it's content, that is when it makes sense to not hold them accountable. Essentially, by curating content, the company makes a statement on what they believe is acceptable or not. By not curating any content, a company has deniability on what the owners find acceptable or not. This is more so an issue of whether or not people value freedom. Most social media platforms are questionable anyways. They demand a lot of personal information and collect whatever they can on you from your activity. Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Tiktok, and other platforms most definitely spy on you when there is opportunity to. @hell_hound7 If you think Twitter should be destroyed for hosting SJWs, you are in for a bad surprise if Twitter does fall apart. Your enemies are just going to find another platform, it's as simple as that. People who lose their home will eventually move somewhere else. o7

It is as Lamby says, just stop following cringe and cringe will probably not find you. Segregation of or in the platforms isn't necessarily a bad idea, it allows like-minded people to enjoy the things they like without being bothered by other people. It is ultimately your choice to engage with who you think is your enemy or ally. o7

@momoichi now see when you talk to actual sexworkers living in areas of legalized prostitution you will realize that the decriminalization of prostitution wont lead to human trafficking. Infact human trafficking happens regardless of legalization or not. Plus with brothels and such you wont have to worry about pimps and those kinda things so it works in the end. Its honestly pretty interesting. I ran across a few of these sex workers on reddit who are honestly fighting for this here in the US and other places. That aside. The CP agin idk what is the hub for this i just hear there are controversies surrounding filesharing sites so unless ur in an inner cricle you cant actually get to these links a,yway they have their own system alot of youtubers are diving into it.