No you’re confused, go read the Wikipedia article or a dictionary, you’re making the same mistake as the other guy trying to shoe horn in the ‘1stA only applies to government’ talking point where it doesn’t fit
If I’m mistaken, you should provide a source for that not just tell me to go read a dictionary. But, I’m not.
It’s pretty well established case law that private companies are more or less free to enforce their own platform rules as long as it doesn’t discriminate.
Yeah that is the law, it has nothing to do with anything I said. I am very aware the first amendment doesn’t apply to private companies and it certainly doesn’t here because my country doesn’t even have a constitution let alone amendments to it.
I was talking about people asking a private company for more censorship - if you read the Wikipedia article you’ll see in the first paragraph it explains your misconception that censorship is only something governments can do. Private companies can and do do it, I think it’s silly when people ask twitch to increase censorship because you’ll all be crying when people can’t stream gta6 because society got so slap happy on the censorship that murder, drug taking and crime got caught up in your crusade against seeing the human body.
and I did provide a source, Wikipedia. I trust you’re not incapable of finding the wiki page on censorship are you?
I don’t think you understand what the definition of censorship is. In either case, I’m not gonna keep arguing with you bcz its not really a fruitful discussion for either of us.
I believe they’ve completely lost the plot. They invoked the word “Wikipedia” as a cited source, they were unable to follow any point being made, but their comment in a different thread from a couple hours ago actually helped me start to understand what’s going on:
They started calling everyone a misogynist for no obvious reason. They were unable to communicate their thoughts in a meaningful way or interpret information presented to them.
Further, 17 hours ago, on a post that was clearly pro-piracy and not AI related at all, they commented, “AntiAI bros raging at this.” There’s zero relationship to the post.
I’m seeing a trend where they have their own opinions (censorship is always bad, misogyny is bad, AI is good) and then decide to share those opinions with tangential or no connection to that which they’re replying. They’re also fond of personal attacks and several common argument fallacies. Their comment history reads like a tribute to /r/im13andthisisdeep.
I hope it’s merely age and maturity-related and not something more permanent.
I used Wikipedia and the dictionary as a source for the established usage of a word, a totally reasonable usage of the resources.
Yes in another thread entirely I made an observation that a joke is misogynistic and got upvoted by people who agree. I also made a joke that people saying ai learning from images it viewed is theft from artists would be angry at the statement made in post that piracy is not they because the original owner doesn’t get deprived of the original - none of this had anything to do with the topic at hand.
Your effort to dismiss my options with (incorrect) semantics and now whatever this weird display is make it very clear you’re simply against the conclusion I come to but are incapable of coming up with am actual argument against them, very typical emotional response tbh but digging into my comment history is a bit of an obsessive act and hints to me that you’re not seeking truth especially as you refuse to spend less effort reading the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article and learning your already meaningless argument on word definition is wrong.
But again pro censorship person tries to use methods to silence someone or divert from their original point rather than address the actual argument is par for the course.
No you’re confused, go read the Wikipedia article or a dictionary, you’re making the same mistake as the other guy trying to shoe horn in the ‘1stA only applies to government’ talking point where it doesn’t fit
If I’m mistaken, you should provide a source for that not just tell me to go read a dictionary. But, I’m not.
It’s pretty well established case law that private companies are more or less free to enforce their own platform rules as long as it doesn’t discriminate.
Yeah that is the law, it has nothing to do with anything I said. I am very aware the first amendment doesn’t apply to private companies and it certainly doesn’t here because my country doesn’t even have a constitution let alone amendments to it.
I was talking about people asking a private company for more censorship - if you read the Wikipedia article you’ll see in the first paragraph it explains your misconception that censorship is only something governments can do. Private companies can and do do it, I think it’s silly when people ask twitch to increase censorship because you’ll all be crying when people can’t stream gta6 because society got so slap happy on the censorship that murder, drug taking and crime got caught up in your crusade against seeing the human body.
I don’t think you understand what the definition of censorship is. In either case, I’m not gonna keep arguing with you bcz its not really a fruitful discussion for either of us.
I believe they’ve completely lost the plot. They invoked the word “Wikipedia” as a cited source, they were unable to follow any point being made, but their comment in a different thread from a couple hours ago actually helped me start to understand what’s going on:
They started calling everyone a misogynist for no obvious reason. They were unable to communicate their thoughts in a meaningful way or interpret information presented to them.
Further, 17 hours ago, on a post that was clearly pro-piracy and not AI related at all, they commented, “AntiAI bros raging at this.” There’s zero relationship to the post.
I’m seeing a trend where they have their own opinions (censorship is always bad, misogyny is bad, AI is good) and then decide to share those opinions with tangential or no connection to that which they’re replying. They’re also fond of personal attacks and several common argument fallacies. Their comment history reads like a tribute to /r/im13andthisisdeep.
I hope it’s merely age and maturity-related and not something more permanent.
I used Wikipedia and the dictionary as a source for the established usage of a word, a totally reasonable usage of the resources.
Yes in another thread entirely I made an observation that a joke is misogynistic and got upvoted by people who agree. I also made a joke that people saying ai learning from images it viewed is theft from artists would be angry at the statement made in post that piracy is not they because the original owner doesn’t get deprived of the original - none of this had anything to do with the topic at hand.
Your effort to dismiss my options with (incorrect) semantics and now whatever this weird display is make it very clear you’re simply against the conclusion I come to but are incapable of coming up with am actual argument against them, very typical emotional response tbh but digging into my comment history is a bit of an obsessive act and hints to me that you’re not seeking truth especially as you refuse to spend less effort reading the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article and learning your already meaningless argument on word definition is wrong.
But again pro censorship person tries to use methods to silence someone or divert from their original point rather than address the actual argument is par for the course.