hodar

zimmie said:

Make your own platform. That is the remedy available to you.

Banning users is a form of speech. 

You mean like Parlor?  If I recall correctly, Amazon, Apple and Google worked in concert to eliminate the competition, and to prevent them from finding another internet provider.  Some would call that predatory anti-competitive behavior.  It was alleged for not moderating their content, however you will find similar violations on other platforms that are overlooked.

Others would ask a simple question.  When was the last time a group of people who censored, burned books, used violence to shut down other points of view, who decided that they were the sole arbiters of what the "truth" was, considered the "Good Guys"?  

It's not a trick question, feel free to refer to history.  I will simply quote Thomas Jefferson, who said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."  (But what would he know?)

dysamoria said:

So long as there continues to be false equivalency presented between that which is harmful garbage opinions & myths/propaganda that contradicts demonstrable facts, and that which is merely an emotional response of “I don’t like what they’re saying”, this will never be a conversation with any rational discourse or reasonable solutions.

A sane society *should* suppress socially-destructive garbage to some degree.

There are cases of conflicting opinions, and there are cases of socially-destructive lying. They’re not the same, and they should never be handled the same way.

Please remind me, when was the last time that the "Book burners", the "Censorship Police" and the thugs who attack and beat people with a different point of view (ie , Sturmabteilung) considered the "good guys"?   Silly me, I can't think of a single example.

What's the point of freedom of speech, if any dissenting opinion is "shouted down" by a crowd?  As Thomas Jefferson said about the Freedom of Speech "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."  But, what would the know?

In the history of mankind, when has censorship and banning free speech ever been done by the “Good Guys”

Why are they so terrified by an alternative point of view, that they refuse to debate, but demand to silence?  It’s almost as if they know they cannot defend their viewpoint any other way, than violence and suppression 

In the game of Chess; which is what Intelligence is all about - there is no obligation on either side to tell you their plan or strategy.  One could easily argue that this is a National Defense secret.

That's why Apple is constantly updating their Secure Enclave and iOS several times a year.  A stationary target, is a dead target.

I fully expect the response to be "go pound sand".  The Oxley-Sarbanes Act of 2002 put in place incentives for companies to be forthright and honest when dealing with privacy issues.  Jobs and Cook are both on the record of doing what they can to maintain customer privacy, further they say that Apple does not have a means to gather, nor intention to monetize privacy issues.  A CEO or executive that violates this act, can be PERSONALLY held responsible, fined $5 Million and/or 20 Years.

spice-boy said:

This is great news, looks like the Democrats will continue to turn Texan into a Blue state. Great for America.