Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/10/21 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    carlimac

    Censorship?

    Then Maxine Waters and AOC should be thought of as a gay wedding cake, too. Why are their inciting violence videos allowed to stay up? This is the problem that is painfully obvious. Facebook and Twitters rules aren't applied evenly or fairly. It's plain as day.
  2. 2 points
    estradling75

    Censorship?

    Information is essential for Human Survival.. Knowing where to find food, shelter, etc is about information as is everything else we might choose to do. If certain platforms have become dominate providers of information then yes that is an issue. I am also old enough to remember other forms of communication that wasn't social media as well, I do not see very many of those left standing, and those that are are but shadows of there former selves (including this site). Legally and morally... if companies want immunity to what other might say and do with there services (aka common carrier) then they can not control or restrict users or content except in the most common and general ways. If however they wish to control the content/message then they should be liable for that content. At this point I would love to see people sue the crap out of Facebook/Twitter etc. For all the hateful and violence promoting posts they have not removed. Since they have abandon the pretenses of being a common carrier they should not have the protections of such. Such arguments made in the court of law would be how we shake this out
  3. 1 point
    I don’t like the way I look in a suit. Nor do I like the way I look in slacks. I think the traditional black leather church shoes look bad. I much prefer to wear my khaki / grey jeans with a white shirt and a tie. I have some great looking cotton canvas shoes with a red and blue rustic striped pair of socks and a really good looking watch. Very much a millennial look. I think I look the best in that outfit than any other... but is that the point? Is the traditional black suit inherently more appropriate for church? what decides “Sunday best”? Culture? Personal preference? What it symbolizes? Some magic combination of clothing that summons the spirit?
  4. 1 point
    I would say “Sunday Best” is whatever conveys your best intent to the Lord, your humble willingness to submit your will and desires to His, and your respect for the holy ordinance of the Sacrament. It is an offering to the Lord for the period of time spent in His house on His holy day (some extend this principle to what they wear at home). This is largely assumed by cultural norms, and within the faith community subset, the example of leaders and the feelings of fellow worshippers. The “widow’s mite” counts, so I do not think it is acceptable to the Lord to compare oneself to others with a spirit of shame or enmity over clothing, and modesty would prevent drawing attention to oneself for their own satisfaction.
  5. 1 point
    Anddenex

    Censorship?

    It's because we live in a double standard world. It is OK for BLM, Antifa, Democratic platform to encourage, entice, promote (even fit the bill for release of criminals), and use Facebook, Google, Apple, and other outlets for their violence. We live in a very hypocritical society. If all things were issued fairly, no one would be having a complaint. If Facebook, Apple, Google, etc...called out the violence that happened for 7 months they might have a leg to stand on. But no, they encouraged it, supported it, and did nothing against those who enticed it. BLM an known marxist organization, that initiated and assisted with violence still have a Twitter account. Go figure -- shocker -- not.
  6. 1 point
    Godless

    Censorship?

    I'm old enough to remember communicating without social media, and I'm not particularly old. We've grown incredibly used to these services (some might say dependent), but I wouldn't call them essential. Did you just compare grocery stores, retailers that sell commodities that are essential for human survival, to internet platforms that didn't exist 20 years ago? Not only that, but you did it on a web-based site that isn't affiliated with any of the major media companies. Interesting. I agree that this is a new frontier from a legal standpoint, and it'll be interesting to see how things shake out.
  7. 1 point
    Fether

    Censorship?

    In principle, I agree 100%. However, this is a false equivalence. A single small bakery that serves pastries to 5,000 customer annually that is competing against 100+ other small bakeries is not comparable to 3 social media giants that dominate their industry. Legally speaking... I don’t think there are any issues... however there does seem to be some unaddressed moral issue that might need to be addressed by the law. Social media has become the new main stream form of communication and in many cases has become the new town square or town forum. When a company succeeds so much that it displaces essential aspects of life, then in my opinion there ought to be laws to safe guard human rights. This is the issue people are having. The spread of ideas and discourse is owned by FB, Instagram, and Twitter. They are essentially in control of what ideas can spread. Imagine if Amazon, Walmart, and Kroger became so big that it became the only option to get food and water. Then they started saying “You can’t shop here unless you affirm that abortion is a morally good human right, anything other than this is domestic terrorism”. As a business, they can do this legally, but there will be countless people that will be barred from getting essential food and water. Then you may say “but smaller markets can open up that cater to those that don’t believe abortion to be morally acceptable” and I would agree... in principle... however, what we are seeing with the social media market is that these super power corporations have had such a huge control over the ideologies that are spread, that they are stomping out any competition that has different views (enter Parler). Twitter removed Donald trump because they defined his tweets as being instigating violent protests. We don’t even need to go into how other people’s twitters are still going and strong despite supporting other organizations that have been rioting for years. The issue is that they are falsely defining something as being evil. “We shouldn’t punch people in the face... unless they are a Nazi, it’s ok to punch Nazis... and everyone I disagree with is a Nazi” Amazon, Walmart, and Kroger can band together with their many customers and call on the government to shut down these domestic terrorist based stores that are popping up. The issue with the censorship and de-platforming is not a legal issue. I think we all agree the companies have the right to decide how to run their business. The issue is that these companies have entered a new frontier of business. and because of this, no laws have been made for companies on their situation. Deplatforming someone on FB or Twitter or preventing companies like Parler to exist has the same effect as driving out people with anti-slavery views, Mormons, and woman suffer age supports in the pre-modern eras
  8. 1 point
    You'd be surprised how distrustful the Left is of the major news media outlets despite the fact that, as you correctly claim, there is a clear liberal bias. I tried to be very careful (sometimes unsuccessfully, I'll admit) when commenting on last summer's riots because there was a lot of misinformation and one-sided reporting going on. I'll admit that the fact that I fully supported the reasons behind the protests made some of the violent aspects a bit more palatable, even if I didn't agree with those actions. Good news, you don't have to take my word for it, or the media's. The people who lived through it had plenty to say, including the Conservatives. Fair enough.
  9. 0 points
    Godless

    Censorship?