BobDole

So accusing others of illegal behavior is something you would allow? What about posting of pornography? Do you want that allowed?

As I stated banning IP addresses these days is risky and doesn't do much as users can use multiple IP addresses each day with work, home, and cell networks. And then again, even if you go after their IP addresses they can always get a VPN and then you play that game too. This was much easier 15 years ago when most cell phones didn't access the internet, but these days it is fruitless.

All is good until someone sues InterMat for allowing that kind of advice to stay on the website without being taken down.

Good luck with this, no one wants their full time job to be patrolling the depths to check every message for adhering to these guidelines. No way I'm reading every topic, hence why some get out of hand until it gets reported or I stumble across it. You also did not address people who are just making this place unbearable to come to. They don't always post negatively, but nag, annoy, and provoke others to be annoying. Is there a rule for that or do we just allow it until no one comes here? IP Address banning is worthless when people use multiple addresses a day and by banning them you can also ban users that are not delinquents. In your world, everything is black and white, yet patrolling a board like this or even the huge social media platforms is not black and white. As stated previously you can't fit everything into a square hole.

Again all this sounds fine and dandy unless you need to enforce it. Where is the line drawn to censor something? Do we censor aka ban the annoying person who makes this place intolerable to read? Just like in your house, are you going to let me in if I just scream at your spouse and cuss at your kids? I'm not breaking any laws, but sure am making your house pretty miserable to be at. Do we censor aka delete posts telling people a great weight loss technique is to drink bleach? Does Intermat have a right to protect it's users from doing harmful things and thinking that since it is posted here that it is a verifiable way of losing weight? Do we censor posts accusing someone of inappropriate relations with athletes? This was something that came up a year ago when some people were saying a coach was doing some bad things. There was no evidence, but at what point do we stop the accusations? It boils down simply, how much garbage will you dig through to find what you want? Are you will to sift through accusations of bad behavior, annoying posters trying to start fights, and topics about cats to find what you want to read? If you want what you believe is truly freedom of speech, this place would be intolerable to come and discuss topics at. Drawing the line is easy to say, but the act of doing it makes it a squiggly line and nothing like you believe in your head.

I'll go into more details. This is great, you can make all the guidelines in the world, but you can't fit everything into the square hole. Who decides if someone has went against these guidelines? Maybe I feel someone went over them, while Willie says no that's fine. This isn't a 55mph speed limit, this is "reasonable speeds should be taken at all times." We aren't always going to agree on what a reasonable speed is. The people who have been banished from the website usually haven't posted anything against the guidelines per se, however they have been increasingly annoying and making this place less enticing to frequent. How do we make guidelines to not be annoying? Should we censor annoying people who are intolerable to visit? Tending to social media is not an easy job and I can't even imagine what goes on an the big dawgs. Do we let people be idiots and potentially ruin our product or do we censor people?

There are lots of questions presented, however I do not see an answer the simple question of should it be censored? You have legal options against whom? An anonymous internet troll using a VPN in China or InterMat? How does the InterMat staff not know it's true, we certainly can't vet everything posted on here. It sounds as if you want some standards of decency and not to have false information posted on here, but doesn't that create less freedom by restricting your speech? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Here is another example that might affect multiple people on here. Say there is a health emergency and a respected poster claims his cousin who is a doctor told him to drink 8oz of bleach and it will cure it. He even claims he did it. Then you suggest it to your spouse and they die. Would you want that censored or are we just going to weed out the idiots who believe that stuff? Everyone of these examples can be extrapolated to X, Facebook, and any other way bigger platform. In summary, as I stated earlier, everyone wants Freedom of Speech until it affects them personally.

Social media is still very new and ever evolving. What would Intermat's role be if someone starting falsely posting on here using your real name that you were a pedo? Would you want it censored or just let it go even though it was false information? At what point should a person be censored for spreading false information on this website? People who post what you said have very little comprehension of the affects of spreading false information. There always becomes a point in which the information on social media needs to be censored. Everyone wants this fantasy of freedom of speech until it affects them personally.

It's not even critical thinking, it's moreso the ability to sift through the crap to find the real stuff. Too many just share anything that fits their beliefs without doing the research to see if the post is true.

X and other social media platforms spread way more false information than CNN and Fox combined. Add to that images are easily faked to dupe every Boomer out there that then shares the posts to everyone. Social media platforms are notorious for promoting posts that drive engagement, good and bad. It is well known that they push the controversial political stuff over your dog's birthday pics.

Now they can say they don't have money to advertise since their budget is going towards lawyer fees.

That didn't last long.

How do we know the other boxers aren't XY also? There very well could be XY producing a normal level of testosterone for an XX female. Would it surprise you if multiple female athletes in the Olympics are deemed to have XY chromosomes?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/01/olympic-gender-testing-boxers/74615354007/ This explains how the IOC deals with gender.

What restroom should Imane Khelif use? She has female genitals, but looks like a man and hits like a man.

You mean to tell me criminals are criminals even behind bars? I am completely shocked that putting someone in prison doesn't stop them from being criminals.

This should be what we are discussing, instead the anti-trans brigade is trying trying to learn biology on the fly and it is hilarious to see them try to comprehend this whole situation with Khelif having female genitals. Gender is a social construct and can be defined by more than what is in your pants.

Gender is not as easily defined as looking in someone's pants as the mouth breathers want to think.

Thanks for your contribution, at least it wasn't some random tweet.

Still didn't answer my question. Why does the tech world lean to one side except free speech Musk?

But why would this be? This should be the question that needs answered.

Everything posted on Twitter is true because Musk only allows the truth there.

Unfortunately it takes a computer science degree these days to have any internet privacy.

According to Project 2025 he was likely talking to all the women.