Nailbender

Your theory isn't wrong. I want that to change.

That's a pretty high bar for this crowd.

ND is 90° NF is 45° ETA sorry fishbane, didn't mean to quote you.

No Amine.

Republicans are no different.

I'd encourage you to change it just to see some of the fun you could come up with but some people commented they didn't like it. If I were you, I'd just keep it.

Moderation always sucked and probably will continue to. There are just different people complaining.

People can do a lot of things.

So he has no choice in what he posts?

I thought we covered that? Can we stop complaining about how it's run now?

Fair enough.

No one receives insightful feedback from Nailbender. I'm not leaving that one just lofted up there for everyone.

The klan isn't making a comeback on Twitter. Just stop. The world won't end if Twitter doesn't censor posts. Expecting someone else to protect us from the things you're worried about is asking for trouble. To stop them we all need to stand up to them. You still haven't answered me. Who should decide what we all get to see and what we don't?

People hearing all the information and deciding for themselves is not a "purposeful destruction of society." As for your last question, I don't claim to know. Why don't you tell me.

Who will be the arbiters of the "supervision"? I want no less freedom for anyone else than I want for myself. The Nazi message has already been spread the world over and rejected more than accepted. Twitter won't change that. Your underlined sentence is shocking to me. It's a point of view that is extremely authoritarian. So much so, I can't believe you typed it. I don't think you understand my point of view at all.

I am serious. If you want to save the world from bad ideas, speak out against them. I don't want to decide what is misinformation for anyone else and I definitely don't want others deciding it for me. I'm sure Twitter's desire to moderate content on its platform is to keep it from becoming a product they don't want it to be. I see nothing wrong with that, I just don't like the previous or existing product. It's most of the worst parts of us already, even with moderation.

Twitter is and has always been mostly disgusting. It has little to nothing to do with who runs it.

Of course it does. Did I make an argument that it shouldn't?

You have to be the most partisan person on this board.

I don't want child porn distributed. Preventing speech that break laws or facilitates breaking the law would be a good guide. Other than that I don't understand most of your other examples? I don't see how having some arbitrary person or a computer program hiding certain speech is helpful in any way. You don't think society exposing it as wrong or bad would be more effective?

I don't necessarily disagree. As an aside, before social media the cynics and crazies still rambled. Sometimes in the literal public square or at the bar or wrestling tournaments, wherever. I think everyone saw them as just what they were. Why do we need to protect people on social media from seeing them and would you let me decide who they are?

Biden said both to go onto the balcony to fire in the air and to just shoot through the door. These were two different interviews with Biden on two different occasions. Both comments were in the news within a week of each other. Your video is from a Facebook chat. My quote is from an interview with Field and Stream magazine. The articles I posted reference your quote on video as a similar comment from Biden to the quote I posted from Field and Stream. The articles are actually about Biden giving stupid advice about guns twice in a short period. Snopes finds my quote "mostly true" adding "mostly" only because they want to ad context to it. They explain as much. They don't dispute that he did say EXACTLY what I posted. You are hypocritically hurling the "ad hominems" you claim to be against all while being completely an utterly wrong. No amount of capital letters or insults will change that fact. I have now proven and explained this as clearly as anyone possibly can without pictures in crayon. I can't understand it for you. Good luck

From the earlier article "At first glance, the social media posts certainly appear to be cocky and extreme, which they probably are. But that’s Starocci’s brand." Probably? Does it being his "brand" make it better? Not specific to CS but being an amazing NCAA wrestler is great. Doing it without being an a**hole as a person is better. That said, I'm so glad that I wasn't given the opportunity to immortalize all of the stupid things I thought were cool when I was young.

Warner has never been one to score more points than needed. Sometimes it's hard to judge how many it will take, making it a recipe for limited success.

I wish we had a "winner" emoji. In all the ramblings of the other thread, for the most part only one "solution" has been presented in various forms. "Ban something, govern me harder daddy!" No interest in the root of what causes people to hurt others. I've begged for answers to how we can prevent gun violence. How will your idea will help? What does that term actually mean? How does that work out when put into practice? Explain to me why our elected leaders prove they don't know what they're talking about every time they speak? These simple questions are met with a response akin to insulting their mother and fervent arguing about BS that I just can't seem to resist engaging. I'm embarrassed about my part in that. I had ideas. No one has even cared to ask what they might be because I'm not on their team. If I'm not on board with banning something, f*ck me I'm the enemy or just not "intellectual" enough to understand. It's gross and doesn't bode well for the future.