(05-29-2020, 10:45 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(05-29-2020, 10:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: It asks the FTC to clarify something, yes, but the thing is really clear.
Twitter can't be held liable for
"Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider [Twitter] or user considers to be obscene... or otherwise objectionable..."

It's super broad.  You can't make it less broad. Anything can be "otherwise objectionable." And it would be really hard to cross the line into bad faith.  Twitter sincerely believes that their "corrections" to Trump's tweets are true.  Their T.O.S. has always said they might delete or alter tweets.  They are always giving a reason for each ruling they make.  That's good faith.  Sincerity of purpose.  Just because you feel oppressed doesn't mean the opponent is acting in bad faith.

---

Disrupting a legislature is much worse than burning down a convenience store.
Study your revolutions. Study our Declaration of Independence.

Awwww , wuz da poor politicians scared to come to work and face the people they were misrepresenting? Your statement is idiocy at it's finest. "Distrupting a legislature", man get the [BLEEP] outta here with that bull [BLEEP].

And yes Gabe, death for rioting, not protesting because that's not what they are doing at all, should absolutely be fine and dandy.

---

(05-29-2020, 10:45 AM)Gabe Wrote: We can definitely agree there, especially considering the immediate reactions to both protests by LEOs.

Lol, the protest had zero violence, the riots are burning down cities. That you attempt to equate the two is absurd.