Complaint Thread

[CosmicSpeed]

This could literally be called the moral ethics discussion thread now. It's great to have this sort of dialogue and I am enjoying reading the perspectives of each individual.

[exracer327]

2 hours ago, Mark Twain said:

Parler was deplatformed and banned because it did not police threats issued by users, which is entirely different than hate speech. Amazon’s response to Parler’s lawsuit cites many clear examples of calls to violence that they asked to be removed for months and Parler did nothing. You can read the cited examples in the direct court filing:

https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf

As for the hash tags on Twitter.-are these people actually calling for violence or talking about the tag? I see people using tags to talk about and ask why they exist and use these as rhetorical devices to try and show hypocrisy about conservative voices being banned. These tags include #killtrump, #killpelosi, #killpence. I don’t see many people actively using those tags to actually call for violence.

I appreciate that link.  Thank you for posting. 

I would still like to see pictures of the violations.  We joke on this website about sales, "Pictures or it didn't happen."

While some tags on twitter do look to be unused, others are not.  Many are private and I have zero interest in showing them attention.  Also, why are the tags which were flagged in the parlor complaint still active and have been active for some time on twitter?  Isn't that a violation of twitter's TOS, let alone AWS?

Also, people (mostly democrats and a few republicans) were calling for a civil war in 2016 when Trump was first elected.  Where was the horrified media then?  At the same time, just because crazies did it then, does not justifies crazies doing it now.

Clearly, everyone needs to switch to decaf and calm down.

[Mark Twain]

33 minutes ago, exracer327 said:

I appreciate that link.  Thank you for posting. 

I would still like to see pictures of the violations.  We joke on this website about sales, "Pictures or it didn't happen."

While some tags on twitter do look to be unused, others are not.  Many are private and I have zero interest in showing them attention.  Also, why are the tags which were flagged in the parlor complaint still active and have been active for some time on twitter?  Isn't that a violation of twitter's TOS, let alone AWS?

Also, people (mostly democrats and a few republicans) were calling for a civil war in 2016 when Trump was first elected.  Where was the horrified media then?  At the same time, just because crazies did it then, does not justifies crazies doing it now.

Clearly, everyone needs to switch to decaf and calm down.

Reddit's r/Parlerwatch has quite a few of them: 

 

There's also a list: https://imgur.com/gallery/nHb2lO8

[Shortbus311]

Just because conduct happens in parallel doesn't mean that it is coordinated.  If someone is acting like a complete a-hole, some number of people around them will likely act in the same or similar ways towards them (shun, disassociate, etc.) without requiring any coordination. 
The problem Parler had was not a coordinated effort to destroy them, but a common reaction once a bright light was shined on what the app was being used for and what was taking place on the app.  If someone created an app to distribute child pornography and marketed it under some other guise, how quickly do you think service providers would disassociate themselves from the app if its true purpose came to light in a very public way and do you think it would require coordination between them? 

I am going to start by saying that yes, a call for violence against someone else is illegal and Parler should have had some kind of mechanism in place to remove such posts.

A quick Google search shows that Parler has 10m+ users. I believe that Amazon pointed to about 100 posts that they deemed were calls for violence. Yes, those posts should have been removed and the posters reported to authorities. But, those posters represented a very small minority of people and posts on the platform. It's not like the vast majority of users were using it to promote violence.

In fact, investigations have revealed that the majority of planning and coordination of actual violence and not just threats of violence were done on FB. These acts include the riot at the capitol and some riots earlier in the year. So, since FB has been used to coordinate actual violence by a small minority of It's users should that app be removed from app stores and marketplaces?

Btw, as a side note, Parler is still up and running and can be installed still by sideloading the apk file. They just can't reach the everyday person new user like they could from the marketplaces.

[Alpinemaps]

I am going to start by saying that yes, a call for violence against someone else is illegal and Parler should have had some kind of mechanism in place to remove such posts.

I feel like that’s the hypocrisy sounding all of this. (And this is directed toward you or anyone here).

Kathy Griffin posted that picture of her holding Trump’s severed head while, she is holding a knife. Madonna has said she wants to blow up the White House. Neither of them have had those posts removed or their accounts suspended or banned.

I believe it will be difficult to convince the President’s supporters that he is being treated fairly, when others that are also promoting violence are treated differently.

I accept that even if you did suspend those accounts, people would still complain he’s being treated unfairly. But at least it wouldn’t be hypocritical.

[Shortbus311]

Just as an interesting addition to recent discussions here, there is a bill being proposed in N Dakota that will make social media companies with more than 1m users liable for damages to posters who they censor and to users who normally would have received the censored posts.

This bill, once passed, would directly conflict with section 230 of the federal communications act. Federal law does take precedent over state law, but I think this may open an avenue for arguments to made in court over the legality of section 230 and the argument of censorship vs free speech on social media.

[spener90]

I'm going to move this briefly away from the current discussion to vent.

My biggest complaint about selling Lego is those who want "100% Mint" boxes. I realize the value of a collectible, but these losers are annoying. Every time I sell to one I think I'm going to get a complaint because there is a tiny ding in the upper left hand corner of the box, "item not as described". I appreciate a mint box as much as the next guy, but come on, it's a freaking toy.

[Bold-Arrow]

2 minutes ago, spener90 said:

I'm going to move this briefly away from the current discussion to vent.

My biggest complaint about selling Lego is those who want "100% Mint" boxes. I realize the value of a collectible, but these losers are annoying. Every time I sell to one I think I'm going to get a complaint because there is a tiny ding in the upper left hand corner of the box, "item not as described". I appreciate a mint box as much as the next guy, but come on, it's a freaking toy.

I just put a disclaimer in my listings that none of the boxes are mint even if they are . 

[MarleyMoose]

38 minutes ago, Bold-Arrow said:

I just put a disclaimer in my listings that none of the boxes are mint even if they are . 

I do the same thing. Every listing includes "Boxes are NOT mint. May have some shelf wear that can include scratches, creases, dings, dents ect...."

[KShine]

16 minutes ago, Bold-Arrow said:

I just put a disclaimer in my listings that none of the boxes are mint even if they are . 

And that still doesn't always help.

But we must also remember - It's that same state of mind (irrational sense of worth) that makes this all possible.

[scratchdesk]

18 minutes ago, MarleyMoose said:

I do the same thing. Every listing includes "Boxes are NOT mint. May have some shelf wear that can include scratches, creases, dings, dents ect...."

I do this as well.  Coming from trading cards I've worked on verbiage many times to make sure it's as iron clad as possible in the event of a complaint. 

Id go with something a bit more encompassing along the lines of:
"I make no claims to the condition of the boxes. Items may have wear and tear that cannot be seen in the photos.  If you have specific concerns of need clarification please contact me for additional details or photos.  Wear and tear can include, but is not limited to: scratches, scuffs, gouges, dents, dings, indentions, stickers, sticker residue and fading.  Photos are of the actual item you will receive."

This way you specifically define most any reason a picky buyer can come up with.  Won't work all the time, and sometimes it isn't worth the hassle to fight but if I need to fall back on it I can.

[KvHulk]

 

7 minutes ago, scratchdesk said:

hing a bit more encompassing along the lines of:
"I make no claims to the condition of the boxes. Items may have wear and tear that cannot be seen in the photos.  If you have specific concerns of need clarification please contact me for additional details or photos.  Wear and tear can include, but is not limited to: scratches, scuffs, gouges, dents, dings, indentions, stickers, sticker residue and fading.  Photos are of the actual item you will receive."

All my auctions say something along those lines and I still get notes attached to sales with messages like, "Will you PLEASE, PLEASE make a good package, in a well padded, STURDY BIG box? Could you please wrap the set in bubble wrap and then add cardboard on the top and the bottom of the Lego set? Even when sellers do not accept returns, Ebay guarantees returns, in case a Lego box gets damaged because of poor packaging."

People don't read ****.

Edited January 16, 2021 by KvHulk

[scratchdesk]

9 minutes ago, KvHulk said:

 

All my auctions say something along those lines and I still get notes attached to sales with messages like, "Will you PLEASE, PLEASE make a good package, in a well padded, STURDY BIG box? Could you please wrap the set in bubble wrap and then add cardboard on the top and the bottom of the Lego set? Even when sellers do not accept returns, Ebay guarantees returns, in case a Lego box gets damaged because of poor packaging."

People don't read ****.

Oh that's understood.  There is risk there that the item gets damaged in shipping.  That's on the seller though.  The description is to protect you from eBay/ buyers in the event you want to fight a return for minor imperfections.

[waydog]

2 hours ago, Alpinemaps said:

 

I feel like that’s the hypocrisy sounding all of this. (And this is directed toward you or anyone here).

Kathy Griffin posted that picture of her holding Trump’s severed head while, she is holding a knife. Madonna has said she wants to blow up the White House. Neither of them have had those posts removed or their accounts suspended or banned.

I believe it will be difficult to convince the President’s supporters that he is being treated fairly, when others that are also promoting violence are treated differently.

I accept that even if you did suspend those accounts, people would still complain he’s being treated unfairly. But at least it wouldn’t be hypocritical.

 

It's a sign of the times i guess to compare useless celebrity social media posts to defend the president of the United States.  Seems equal i guess.  Hypocritical? Really?  Really? Lol

I mean, does madonna have the codes to the nuclear football?

Does kathy Griffin have the authority to tell the joint Chiefs of staff to launch a missile strike on tehran?

Where will it end if we compare the presidents words and social media posts to useless celebrities to validate our own inner feelings?

I could have sworn the president has a ton of rules to follow that ordinary citizens don't which SHOULD include social media posts.

Madonna can take a diamond necklace from Putin.  Kathy griffin can bang justin trudeau and it's all good.  President Trump cannot.  Is that unfair or hypocritical too?

It's only the president of the United freaking state's and the most influential and powerful person in the free world.  It's a tad different than old crazy ass Madonna making an irrelevant post.

Ugh!

 

[KShine]

48 minutes ago, waydog said:

It's a sign of the times i guess to compare useless celebrity social media posts to defend the president of the United States.  Seems equal i guess.  Hypocritical? Really?  Really? Lol

I mean, does madonna have the codes to the nuclear football?

Does kathy Griffin have the authority to tell the joint Chiefs of staff to launch a missile strike on tehran?

Where will it end if we compare the presidents words and social media posts to useless celebrities to validate our own inner feelings?

I could have sworn the president has a ton of rules to follow that ordinary citizens don't which SHOULD include social media posts.

Madonna can take a diamond necklace from Putin.  Kathy griffin can bang justin trudeau and it's all good.  President Trump cannot.  Is that unfair or hypocritical too?

It's only the president of the United freaking state's and the most influential and powerful person in the free world.  It's a tad different than old crazy ass Madonna making an irrelevant post.

Ugh!

It's a good thing no one encouraged people to burn/destroy their cities, kill police, and attack innocent civilians.

We would have never had our summer of love.

Edited January 16, 2021 by KShine

[Alpinemaps]

It's a sign of the times i guess to compare useless celebrity social media posts to defend the president of the United States.  Seems equal i guess.  Hypocritical? Really?  Really? Lol
I mean, does madonna have the codes to the nuclear football?
Does kathy Griffin have the authority to tell the joint Chiefs of staff to launch a missile strike on tehran?
Where will it end if we compare the presidents words and social media posts to useless celebrities to validate our own inner feelings?
I could have sworn the president has a ton of rules to follow that ordinary citizens don't which SHOULD include social media posts.
Madonna can take a diamond necklace from Putin.  Kathy griffin can bang justin trudeau and it's all good.  President Trump cannot.  Is that unfair or hypocritical too?
It's only the president of the United freaking state's and the most influential and powerful person in the free world.  It's a tad different than old crazy ass Madonna making an irrelevant post.
Ugh!
 

My point isn’t about the President’s feelings. It’s about a celebrity and their ability to reach a large number of people with suggestions of violence.

If say, Christy Swanson (who is a Trump supporter and at this point as D-List as Cathy Griffin held up the head of Biden in the same pose, don’t you think she would be vilified and cancelled? Don’t you think that would be criminal? Don’t you think that it would get media attention (much as Griffin did) and that the masses might take it as a call to arms?

I don’t think anyone should be joking about assassination.

I guess if you don’t believe that, then you’re proving the point of hypocrisy. You’re focusing back on the individual and not talking about the influence words have on people.

[Phil B]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/21/01/16/041214/eff-cory-doctorow-warn-about-the-dangers-of-de-platforming-and-censorship

Edit: I think what it all boils down to is that social media needs regulation. Anything that anyone posts publicly should be held to the same standards, which include being respectful to others, no incitement to riot, no racism, bigotry etc. Whether it is the POTUS or your uncle Al or aunt Sally.

If you want to spew, go ahead in a private group where posts can only be seen by people who have subscribed. But with the note that the platform is monitoring any conversation, and has a legal responsibility to report anything that is perceived as a threat to individuals or states/countries to the police, or risk being considered as an accomplice. Same for criminal activity posted in private groups.

[waydog]

5 minutes ago, Alpinemaps said:

My point isn’t about the President’s feelings. It’s about a celebrity and their ability to reach a large number of people with suggestions of violence.

If say, Christy Swanson (who is a Trump supporter and at this point as D-List as Cathy Griffin held up the head of Biden in the same pose, don’t you think she would be vilified and cancelled? Don’t you think that would be criminal? Don’t you think that it would get media attention (much as Griffin did) and that the masses might take it as a call to arms?

I don’t think anyone should be joking about assassination.

I guess if you don’t believe that, then you’re proving the point of hypocrisy. You’re focusing back on the individual and not talking about the influence words have on people.

Many of the greatest comedians make a point of saying that anything can be a joke.  A comedians job is to find humor in many things.

George carlin made a joke about porky pig raping Elmer fudd.  Did we think carlin was promoting rape?  No, we knew he was a comedian.

Chapelle made jokes about michael jaclson and sex with kids?  Did we think chapelle was promoting pedophilia?  No.  We knew he is a comedian

Kathy griffin is a comedian/actor.  Albeit not very good but that is what she is.

You are using comedians and actors to draw a comparison to the president of the United States.

If you can't see what you posted and are saying is an incorrect analogy to defend the president, well, that's on you.

Maybe you should use the posts of other leaders of free countries to justify hypocrisy for your analogy like the leaders of Canada, Germany, Japan, Mexico, etc to make your point but those leaders of countries wouldn't say the things to get banned so you will ignore that correct analogy and focus on celebrities to prove a point that is vastly inaccurate.

[waydog]

Christy swanson?  Kathy griffin?  Madonna?  This is your position to compare social media influence against the president of the United states???

Add in kid rock, Charlie Sheen, and Tiger woods and it's still not even close, lol

And you are still forgetting in your hypocrisy argument that the president is bound by many, many, many rules that ordinary citizens are not bound too. But that would hurt your vastly inaccurate hypocrisy argument.  

Holding the president to different rules is a necessary protection from the power the office offers that our founding fathers smartly put in.  

[Alpinemaps]

Many of the greatest comedians make a point of saying that anything can be a joke.  A comedians job is to find humor in many things.
George carlin made a joke about porky pig raping Elmer fudd.  Did we think carlin was promoting rape?  No, we knew he was a comedian.
Chapelle made jokes about michael jaclson and sex with kids?  Did we think chapelle was promoting pedophilia?  No.  We knew he is a comedian
Kathy griffin is a comedian/actor.  Albeit not very good but that is what she is.
You are using comedians and actors to draw a comparison to the president of the United States.
If you can't see what you posted and are saying is an incorrect analogy to defend the president, well, that's on you.
Maybe you should use the posts of other leaders of free countries to justify hypocrisy for your analogy like the leaders of Canada, Germany, Japan, Mexico, etc to make your point but those leaders of countries wouldn't say the things to get banned so you will ignore that correct analogy and focus on celebrities to prove a point that is vastly inaccurate.

I guess that’s something we have, as a society, to accept - where to draw the line? Is everything okay? Or is suggesting murder of a political leader too far?

For me, murder is too far. But I guess for others it is not.

And if I’m reading what your saying correctly, then what’s to stop me, and inspiring comedian, from making that same joke about Biden?

Does this mean that the defense to any call to violence can be shielded by “I was joking?”

And for the record - I doubt that joking about rape is as popular in 2021 as it might have been in the past. And it’s certainly not a way to excuse the behavior.

[Alpinemaps]

Christy swanson?  Kathy griffin?  Madonna?  This is your position to compare social media influence against the president of the United states???
Add in kid rock, Charlie Sheen, and Tiger woods and it's still not even close, lol
And you are still forgetting in your hypocrisy argument that the president is bound by many, many, many rules that ordinary citizens are not bound too. But that would hurt your vastly inaccurate hypocrisy argument.  
Holding the president to different rules is a necessary protection from the power the office offers that our founding fathers smartly put in.  

Madonna has nearly 2.5 million Twitter followers. And MSM covered Kathy GiffIn.

What I’m hearing from you is that because they’re celebrities, they get a pass for violence speak.

All it takes is one person to be radicalized by it. Like the guy who shot up the Republicans congressmen at their softball game.

Violence speak is violence speak, no matter who you are. Why defend it?

[waydog]

1 minute ago, Alpinemaps said:

I guess that’s something we have, as a society, to accept - where to draw the line? Is everything okay? Or is suggesting murder of a political leader too far?

For me, murder is too far. But I guess for others it is not.

And if I’m reading what your saying correctly, then what’s to stop me, and inspiring comedian, from making that same joke about Biden?

Does this mean that the defense to any call to violence can be shielded by “I was joking?”

When Kathy griffin dis the severed head bit and Madonna posted the blowing up the white house thing, did anyone get injured, die, get arrested, or take what they did seriously?  Nope

When President Trump made his posts and speech on Wednesday, 5 people died, 56 cops were injured and so far 200 people arrested.

See the difference in influence?

 

[Jbad87]

I agree with both sides of this argument but Roseanne Barr is a comedian and she made one comment and was removed from media. I dont reject that our command in chief should be the image of decency but that's not the world we currently reside. I think regulation of language is a sticky area and doesn't represent the freedom we stand for. There is undeniable hypocrisy in media leaning far to the left but that is what many Americans want or think they want right now.

[waydog]

Seinfeld made a memorable scene about JFKs assasination and investigation too by the way.

Did that make you angry?  Do you take every celebrity post literally and seriously.  Do you not laugh at morbid jokes ever?

I do not believe for one instant that you have not laughed during a tv show or movie about a crime committed.

Hot shots, the naked gun, etc, etc.  They are celebrities, not the leader of the free world that has codes to the nukes.

[KShine]

4 minutes ago, waydog said:

When President Trump made his posts and speech on Wednesday, 5 people died, 56 cops were injured and so far 200 people arrested.

See the difference in influence?

Can you tell me how many people have died, cops were killed/injured during the peaceful protests?

Probably not - See the difference?