10-4. S'cuse me.He knows what I was doing, what I said in parentheses is something he had said.
10-4. S'cuse me.He knows what I was doing, what I said in parentheses is something he had said.
No problem, only a few of us would have known what that meant, and Younggun is one of them.10-4. S'cuse me.
Forgive me but what are you talking about? ....
A bit more then that. Some are moving to the dark web on their own volition. Members of the intellectual dark web include Jordan Peterson, Eric Weinstein and Dave Rubin to name a few.The dark web is somewhere that illicit, illegal, or items banned from the regular web exist.
Yes, but they are setting up a platform outside the restrictions of other platforms.They aren’t on the actual dark web though. That was just a name that was coined for a group of outspoken critics that caught on. Mostly set apart by the fact that they are capable of in depth discussions and debate on the subject.
And lobsters.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, but they are setting up a platform outside the restrictions of other platforms.
I rarely take it personally. No problem.Well, yeah.
I don’t think we’re on the same page, and it’s probably mostly me. Must have misunderstood your post. Idk, been a long week and I need sleep.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Twitter Alternative "Parler" Sees Massive Influx Following Censorship on Twitter
You're kidding right?Wonder what size donation Twitter is going to make to Trumps re-election campaign? He's bound to have increased their readership by leaps and bounds.
Found the case I was looking for. I apologize for the source.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...t-cannot-restrict-your-access-to-social-media
“The court's opinion is that "cyberspace" is the most important place for the "exchange of views" in our society today.”
Supreme Court protecting freedom of speech.Does anyone have an opinion of what that statement infers and its implications?
Supreme Court protecting freedom of speech.
Okay, I'll put it a better way. Supreme Court protecting the 1st Amendment.Protecting free speech, or protecting a national defense asset?
The availability of a platform to disseminate a message fairly and equitably may be interpreted as free speech, but it's an entirely different concept and apparently a confusing one at that. Protecting free speech implies enforcing free speech and subjecting violators to the full force of our nations laws. That has never happened.
Goo, Twit, FB, et. al. all of them have admitted to business practices that violate the principles of free speech. Through selective censorship, silencing views in opposition to their social ideology. They'e done it numerous times with impunity. Censorship that conforms to their corporate ideology or to further an agenda, is not free speech. Its a mythological ideal, nothing more.
The public needs to see the "internet" and all it's permutations for what it is.