WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

It's Time: Ban The Left!

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
15,171
Reaction score
12,369
Twitter isn’t gov. Owned. They 100 percent have the right to make their own rules, censor and ban anyone they like. Sorry. Its not Twitter.Gov


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Publicly owned simply means they sold public securities to outsiders. It doesn’t mean they are held to a different standard whether it be discrimination, censorship, or other constitutionally protected rights.

”publicly traded” is no different in this case than ”privately owned”. They are not a government entity, they are a private enterprise that has simply sold public securities. There is no legal difference in the standards that would apply regardless if twitter was still “private” versus the fact that they have sold public securities and have external shareholders versus solely shareholders made up of founders, management and/or “private” investors.
 

Outdrive1

Outdrive1 Marine Sales https://www.outdrive1.com/
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
28,737
Reaction score
16,645
Thus, you are good for ousting people for their political views. Correct?
Im just saying. If its a private business. They have the right to make the rules and do business with who they want. At least IMO. Not saying its morally right or wrong. We have the right to take our business elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DRYHEAT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
3,720
Reaction score
5,533
Exactly. Publicly owned simply means they sold public securities to outsiders. It doesn’t mean they are held to a different standard whether it be discrimination, censorship, or other constitutionally protected rights.

”publicly traded” is no different in this case than ”privately owned”. They are not a government entity, they are a private enterprise that has simply sold public securities. There is no legal difference in the standards that would apply regardless if twitter was still “private” versus the fact that they have sold public securities and have external shareholders versus solely shareholders made up of founders, management and/or “private” investors.
Slippery slope? So if a private entity can enforce any rules it wanted to and the federal government can’t intervene, why do we have so many federal and state regulations regarding business practices? 😊🤷‍♀️
 

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
6,383
Reaction score
17,107
Im just saying. If its a private business. They have the right to make the rules and do business with who they want. At least IMO. Not saying its morally right or wrong. We have the right to take our business elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess it's a good thing that AT&T, Verizon and the likes do not do take the same positions as Twitter and FB....or at least....not yet anyways ;)
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
16,159
Reaction score
24,019
If twitter/fb censors speech of a single political party, and promotes that of another does that constitute an "in kind" donation in violation of FEC laws?

Asking for a mentally retarded communist friend. 😂
 

Outdrive1

Outdrive1 Marine Sales https://www.outdrive1.com/
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
28,737
Reaction score
16,645
If twitter/fb censors speech of a single political party, and promotes that of another does that constitute an "in kind" donation in violation of FEC laws?

Asking for a mentally retarded communist friend.
Guess that will play out in the courts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,491
Reaction score
2,436
If twitter/fb censors speech of a single political party, and promotes that of another does that constitute an "in kind" donation in violation of FEC laws?

Asking for a mentally retarded communist friend. 😂

Not if the speech that is shut down goes against stated rules...
 

Performance Grips

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
781
Reaction score
1,599
It amazes me that everyone here on either side of the political isle are not furious about what twitter and face book and now apple and google are doing? This is not only censorship of Trump it's also censorship of a ton of conservatives people and organizations. The BANNING of Parlor unless they do exactly what the liberal tech companies want them to do including content? It may be going your way right now but I hope everyone that thinks this is ok now doesn't disagree later. The democratic party is going to eat they're own with all this power, it's already happening. Hopefully the people that think this is cool now are on whatever side Zuckerberg and Dorsey are on. Pretty scary in my opinion.
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
15,171
Reaction score
12,369
Slippery slope? So if a private entity can enforce any rules it wanted to and the federal government can’t intervene, why do we have so many federal and state regulations regarding business practices? 😊🤷‍♀️

No person can go into a news station and demand they put them on the air. No person can force a printed newspaper to print an editorial whether it be political speech or other speech. And no person can force any other form of media, such as Twitter, Facebook or RDP to carry an individuals speech on their private enterprise.

That’s the law. To the extent others would like a law that forces a non-governmentally owned business to take customers they don’t like, well it is pretty much all over then.

Go back to the Section 230 thread. Most in here thought media companies such as twitter and facebook should have no protections for content on their platforms which 230 does. Now those same people are saying those same platforms must accept any and all posters/contributors.

If one wants to advocate for less government by dropping Section 230 I get it. But to then advocate dropping 230 while at the same time advocating those same companies are required by law to take all comers and be responsible for the content they post, seems a wee bit contradictory? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️👨‍🚀
 

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
6,383
Reaction score
17,107
Not if the speech that is shut down goes against stated rules...
So...you are saying "they" can establish their own "rules" to circumvent federal regulations.....spoken like a true Liberal. 😂 😂 😂
 

Exfiltrated18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2020
Messages
537
Reaction score
834
I’m still waiting....If you don’t want to explain yourself, just say so. I’m only curious as you included my statement
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation 😁
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
26,424
Reaction score
34,561
Twitter isn’t gov. Owned. They 100 percent have the right to make their own rules, censor and ban anyone they like. Sorry. Its not Twitter.Gov


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do agree with you, but the other side of the coin is that these companies can’t be so big as to stifle competition.

We should be free to migrate to another platform hosted and presented via the same framework and interface.
 

4Waters

4Waters
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
32,099
Dave has the right to do exactly that.

It would be an interesting experiment to see what the P&G post count would look like a week after all the lefties left...


Hell let’s make it interesting I will voluntarily stop posting in the P&G section for two weeks the minute GMac has confirmed payment of the bets he won.

Can likely convince the other voices of reason here to do the same.

What say you gentlemen?


Pay up and I shut up.
I won't leave RDP for 2 weeks
 

RodnJen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
9,569
Reaction score
5,101
If twitter/fb censors speech of a single political party, and promotes that of another does that constitute an "in kind" donation in violation of FEC laws?

Asking for a mentally retarded communist friend. 😂
Did George Will get banned for being Republican?
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
15,171
Reaction score
12,369
I do agree with you, but the other side of the coin is that these companies can’t be so big as to stifle competition.

We should be free to migrate to another platform hosted and presented via the same framework and interface.

You bring up a valid point as does dnpnews with the Sherman anti trust act. However people including the current administration has been complaining about media oligopolies for over five years.

But who enforces antitrust?
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation 😁
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
26,424
Reaction score
34,561
You bring up a valid point as does dnpnews with the Sherman anti trust act. However people including the current administration has been complaining about media oligopolies for over five years.

But who enforces antitrust?
In 2 more weeks no one :)
 

Grandpa mac

Now politics is kinda boring ;)
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
5,249
Reaction score
971
With all of these posts by our resident lefts supporting social media bans It is obvious they have no problem with a site banning people they don't agree with.

Seeing how probably 99% of RDP members don't agree with the lefty crew here, those leftists should have no problem with getting banned.

Let's do a little experiement. Come on RDP, drop the ban hammer on them for a while! Let's see if they really feel censorship is okay! Let's see how many try to get back in under a new user name. If they don't like it they can start their own site. River Lefty's Place? Lefty Dave's Place? TDS Dave's Place? 😁
Dave has banned me twice despite acknowledging I stayed between the lines. Apparently I get banned because y’all can’t be trusted to be civil in my presence. Just be glad Trump didn’t get his way on the 230 law; abolishing that would be the end of the P&G.
 

Grandpa mac

Now politics is kinda boring ;)
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
5,249
Reaction score
971
Dave has the right to do exactly that.

It would be an interesting experiment to see what the P&G post count would look like a week after all the lefties left...


Hell let’s make it interesting I will voluntarily stop posting in the P&G section for two weeks the minute GMac has confirmed payment of the bets he won.

Can likely convince the other voices of reason here to do the same.

What say you gentlemen?


Pay up and I shut up.
Me too, though as I’ve stated I do plan to return to say “I told you so” after Trump is indicted.
 

Danger Dave

Sarcastically Optimistic 😁
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
11,520
So if I understand, a business can ban the President because they don't like his political views, but a business can't refuse to bake a cake for a gender transition?

 

Grandpa mac

Now politics is kinda boring ;)
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
5,249
Reaction score
971
Let em ban us, just proves what pussies they are to the normies. We’ll adapt and gain more voters.

View attachment 960126
Reg, everyone knows you’re gonna fall in-line in 2024 to vote for Ben Sasse or whomever the Republicans find to run against Kamala, why pretend otherwise?
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,049
Reaction score
59,257

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,049
Reaction score
59,257
Reg, everyone knows you’re gonna fall in-line in 2024 to vote for Ben Sasse or whomever the Republicans find to run against Kamala, why pretend otherwise?
I’m thinking no elections by then, we’ll be treating your ilk the way you treated your negro slaves.

I’m gunna have 7 different colored haired bitches chained to exercise bikes whenever I’m not nailing em in the ass.
 

lbhsbz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
7,146
Reaction score
13,564

DILLIGAF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
12,056
Reaction score
10,364
I’m thinking no elections by then, we’ll be treating your ilk the way you treated your negro slaves.

I’m gunna have 7 different colored haired bitches chained to exercise bikes whenever I’m not nailing em in the ass.
Fucks sakes.....lol
 

4Waters

4Waters
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
15,085
Reaction score
32,099
Dave has banned me twice despite acknowledging I stayed between the lines. Apparently I get banned because y’all can’t be trusted to be civil in my presence. Just be glad Trump didn’t get his way on the 230 law; abolishing that would be the end of the P&G.
You were called out, you gonna be a pussy again?
 

wzuber

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
3,523
Reaction score
3,640
Dave has the right to do exactly that.

It would be an interesting experiment to see what the P&G post count would look like a week after all the lefties left...


Hell let’s make it interesting I will voluntarily stop posting in the P&G section for two weeks the minute GMac has confirmed payment of the bets he won.

Can likely convince the other voices of reason here to do the same.

What say you gentlemen?


Pay up and I shut up.
why would anybody pay on a fraudulently obtained position.......LEFTIST PLAYER

I like the proposed.... test.......BAN these losers.......if they support it for others then provide them with a direct and immediate opportunity to EXPERIENCE THEIR STATED "GREATNESS OF BANNING FREE SPEECH"........adios .......doit.....doit......doit!!!!:D🤣
 
Last edited:

WhatExit?

Well-Known Inmate #'s 2584 & 20161
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Messages
10,960
Reaction score
22,206
Im just saying. If its a private business. They have the right to make the rules and do business with who they want. At least IMO. Not saying its morally right or wrong. We have the right to take our business elsewhere.
You can't hide your spots. You continue to support the Collusive Oligarchs and their monopolies. And you must understand their power and the damage they're doing not only to the United States but to the world.

Yet you continue to support them. You can't hide your spots.


Here, re-fresh your knowledge as you continue to promote this shit...

Oligopoly is a common market form where only a limited number of firms are in competition on the supply side. As a quantitative description of oligopoly, the four-firm concentration ratio is often utilized. This measure expresses, as a percentage, the market share of the four largest firms in any particular industry. For example, as of fourth quarter 2008, if we combine total market share of Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile, we see that these firms, together, control 97% of the U.S. cellular telephone market.[citation needed]

Oligopolistic competition can give rise to both wide-ranging and diverse outcomes. In some situations, particular companies may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) in order to inflate prices and restrict production in much the same way that a monopoly does. Whenever there is a formal agreement for such collusion, between companies that usually compete with one another, this practice is known as a cartel. A prime example of such a cartel is OPEC, which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
 

Outdrive1

Outdrive1 Marine Sales https://www.outdrive1.com/
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
28,737
Reaction score
16,645
You can't hide your spots. You continue to support the Collusive Oligarchs and their monopolies. And you must understand their power and the damage they're doing not only to the United States but to the world.

Yet you continue to support them. You can't hide your spots.


Here, re-fresh your knowledge as you continue to promote this shit...

Oligopoly is a common market form where only a limited number of firms are in competition on the supply side. As a quantitative description of oligopoly, the four-firm concentration ratio is often utilized. This measure expresses, as a percentage, the market share of the four largest firms in any particular industry. For example, as of fourth quarter 2008, if we combine total market share of Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile, we see that these firms, together, control 97% of the U.S. cellular telephone market.[citation needed]

Oligopolistic competition can give rise to both wide-ranging and diverse outcomes. In some situations, particular companies may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) in order to inflate prices and restrict production in much the same way that a monopoly does. Whenever there is a formal agreement for such collusion, between companies that usually compete with one another, this practice is known as a cartel. A prime example of such a cartel is OPEC, which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
Do you have a mind of your own? Or are only able to cut and paste your thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

wzuber

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
3,523
Reaction score
3,640
That is a very basic concept that Squeezy just doesn't understand. Scary stuff right there folks.
and to think what his parents sacrificed to provide him with such "intelegence"...............He just loves too fully display his ignorance and hypocrisy for the world to see.
And to think...how many brave American solders lives were SACRIFICED for one individual MORON such as him to have the LEGAL RIGHT to be so ungrateful and disrespectful of that privilege afforded by the very document he so desperately SEEKS to DESTROY .....................our CONSTITUTION.

@RD please don't continue to ENABLE these poor lost and constitutionally wayword soles. Please help them to see the error of their mentally deficient perspective of the value of FREE SPEECH and ban them.....for their own good. Yes, it's tough love, but you, like Pres. Trump, are a strong and righteous man and have the power to help re-educate these poor lost soles...............please, do it now, do it for their own well being, do it for......their daughters...........BAN THE BASTARDS ALREADY......🤣
 
Last edited:
Top