Third: I have seen people reveling in the suffering of these contractors, because they are the ones who restrict speech on orders of Facebook. Fuck them. It is not the fault of those forced to moderate content uploaded to Facebook with 98% expected accuracy, like they are fucking machines. It is the fault of the progressive cancerous tumor at the very top.
.
I've said enough for today. @famousone @xvarnah @interesting @funkmasterrex @guest_
Feel free to @ anyone else you feel deserves to know.
I want to cool off for a bit, because otherwise I will go into another massive rant about this shit.

^

Yes, defamation is a crime. We know. Nice strawman.
.
Going back to the previous commenter. Yes, I am requesting them to offer their platform to anybody. Because if they are a platform, they are obliged to do so, and can only remove people from the platform for actually breaking the law. If they redact what gets posted online and select who gets to post, they are a publisher and can be sued for what gets posted on them. Simple as that. My personal suggestion is to give them utility status, like the phone company, which effectively brings them to the status of a platform.

That would be a valid argument, if not for the fact that the existing social media is a monopoly. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter are the main three that come to mind. You know why there never is a proper competitor to them? Because the value of social media is based on how many people are using it, and people will never move to a different platform that the people they communicate with don't use, unless they are forcibly kicked out, or quit out of principle. This is why the big SM essentially hold the monopoly on online discourse, they are large enough to enforce rules that will gut free speech and cut out a significant chunk of their userbase, because no competition will rise due to how online communication works.
.
It's like if a phone company had policies on what you can and can't say, so they ban you from using it for saying something, and even if you find a different one, you won't be able to talk to the people you talked to before.

So we agree on most things here then. But please explain how the government regulating the ability of social media corporations to restrict speech wrong? The great thing about bringing the two under the same legal framework is that government cannot pass regulation that would restrict speech, and the same standard would hence apply to SM. So any changes would only reinforce the freedom of speech online, not restrict it.
.
I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that the problem here is that regulation of this kind would mess with the free market, and instead of corporations with bad policies going out of business and being replaced with better alternatives, all of them would be restricted in the same way.

And hate speech does not exist. No speech is too hateful to be censored. The concept of hate speech is unconstitutional and directly opposes free speech on account of the government/SM censoring your opinion.
.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you find an idea hateful, prove it wrong. You either succeed or you're wrong. In either case, things change for the better.

Free speech protects you from being censored by the government, and should extend to social media as well. This means that the person saying something racist is protected from legal consequences, but not social consequences. You can critique, disagree and try to change their mind, but you can't deplatform them, incite violence against them and try to make them lose their job. I can give you so many examples of where people's life got ruined for things they said online. That is unacceptable.
.
If you seriously think that if a person said something you perceive to be racist online (because people might disagree on what can be defined as racist), they deserve any consequences beyond being mocked or verbally opposed, you are controlling their speech -> censoring them under threat of losing something in their life -> becoming a fascist by definition. And before you say, if they incite violence, then that's what they will be held accountable for, not their opinion.

Right, I still didn't hear a definition. Stating your opinion does not count as an action, as it is protected by free speech. Give me an action, a "racist action".

Define "racist action" and provide an example.

More like get a haircut, I'm overdue for that one.

Not if you take the bottom end and pull it sideways, rips the thing right off.

Honk Honk

Nah, the issue is that her writing is atrocious. Throughout the film, she just gets second winds out of nowhere and powers through everything without any real challenge or character development. And I honestly don't understand why I would care about such an underdeveloped character who is basically a walking photon cannon, and that's it.
To explain what I mean by her not being developed: We're introduced to her through a montage of flashbacks. a MONTAGE of FLASHBACKS. That has to be a new height of lazy writing. Just cram a ton of backstory into 8 minutes and hope it sticks. And then, when she meets up with her old friend, the audience is literally being straight up told what her character is (perservering, invested in saving lives, etc.). The writers just tossed the "Show, don't tell" rule out the window, and Brie is incapable of carrying the scene's intended emotional impact due to lack of emotion as such.
.
Plus CM introduced so many continuity errors into MCU, it's ridiculous.

Yeah, by this point, getting attacked by the left is a medal of honor in itself. Got banned from Twitter, your subreddit got quarantined, got demonetized on YouTube? Congrats, it means you're a real threat to the establishment.

All it took to make best friends was a couple of nukes.