dChan
Anonymous ID: cda2e3 Nov. 22, 2020, 9:10 p.m. No.11747086   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7091 >>7224 >>7262

Anyone want to try posting some Bible scripture with the word 'dominion' and see if it triggers the auto-ban?

 

Here's a good one:

 

1 Peter 4:11

 

Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

 

some other dominion scriptures can be found here:

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Dominion

Anonymous ID: cda2e3 Nov. 22, 2020, 10:09 p.m. No.11747477   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7497 >>7640

>>11747351

>This is a NOTABLE for further proof of censorship.

>An attorney might use this as proof in a class action lawsuit, etc…

 

At what point does a user of a product provided for free use by a corporation which develops and maintains all aspects and elements of said product have an expectation of free speech protection?

 

Serious question. It blows my mind that there is such indignation, especially from the representatives in the hearing last week with the creepy clown show starring Zuck and Merlin. No one pays for it. What entitles someone to Constitutional protections of speech? Lawfags?

Anonymous ID: cda2e3 Nov. 22, 2020, 10:25 p.m. No.11747597   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7730 >>7772

>>11747497

 

Obviously they are tremendous cunts, anon.

 

My question has to do with the anon's inference that there might be class action lawsuits against Twat and FB over censorship.

 

We know they are censoring. Why can't they censor?

 

Are these corporations bound by law to provide a free platform which it cannot assert control?

 

This goes to the Section 230 issue which was debated vociferously in the congressional hearing last week.

 

Personally, I do not have the slightest expectation that a company providing a free service would not assert and exercise authority over my use of its service. I don't expect the corporation to give a fuck about my freedom of speech.

 

Just saying, it's bizarre that people feel entitled to assert their 'rights' on a platform that they do not own, develop or maintain and yet which they utilize at no charge.

Anonymous ID: cda2e3 Nov. 22, 2020, 10:38 p.m. No.11747679   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>11747640

>When the media knowingly conceals facts from the public, or censors the truth (think face/twit censorship) in order to overthrow the established order, that becomes sedition.

 

By that definition, the entire Fox News roster is going to Gitmo.

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I am skeptical that until Section 230 is replaced, there is no reasonable expectation of free speech on these platforms. Until they are seen as "publishers" I think they can censor as they please.