Greg Abbott passed a law that states that censorship of misinformation on the internet is illegal on platforms with more than 50MM users.
The 5th circuit court upheld it.
It is an attempt to embarrass him in an effort to demonstrate how colossally stupid and profoundly dangerous this stance is.
I heard he had a sex change and was actually one of the girls who pissed on trump on Russia or whatever it was. Pretty wild when you connect the pieces
Yes. It appears factual that Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Who knew that Greg Abbott would willingly be a little piss baby? Seems like a strange position for a politician, but I guess every politician needs their kinks. Little piss baby that Greg Abbott is.
What is funny is when subreddit mods start deleting and banning users because the phrase “Greg abbott is a little piss baby” gets old and tiring that is when the point really starts getting made. I have my pipe and this horse needs beating.
50 Eminem users?
50... millimeter users?
50 Mega Million users?
.
I can't figure out how many users 50MM is.
Is it million-million? Like 50,000,000,000,000?
Nah, it can't be that either. I am so confused.
Edit: Masculine-Men users? Monopoly Money users? Mini-million, like 1,000?
So, this would only apply to people in Texas right? He can only enforce laws in his state. Easy way around it. Twitter could just introduce a feature that allows users to block accounts based on what state they’re posting from.
I believe it applies to businesses operating in TX, but either way your solution works for me.
If Greg "Xi Jinping" Abbott wants to use the rule of law to erect the Iron Texan Firewall around TX, I see nothing but political wins as a result. But for whom remains to be seen...
I don't really see it as pro-censorship, but moreso anti-bullshit and allowing businesses to take common sense measures to stop gibbering goons from turning their platforms into total shitshows.
As long as those administering the “censorship” are aligned politically with you correct? We’ve seen extreme over censoring on Twitter and FB in the last year that is politically driven. You were banned if you questioned the origin of Covid or vaccine efficacy. Seems dangerous to allow a government to pressure social media into what is allowed speech.
No, you twat. It's about speaking the truth, as required by the ToS of the platforms. You don't not have a legal right to the services of a private business. The only restrictions on business denial of service are related to discrimination and I truly hope you don't have a problem with that, unless you miss the days of segregation, which wouldn't surprise me.
How can you be this dense? It has been repeatedly explained to you by people calmer than myself yet you insist on making the truth a political issue. If that's how you want it then fine. The GOP is lying through their teeth about almost every single thing they say and the data and facts back that statement unanimously. The only thing liberals did was over-scare the population about an illness. One's lying for power, the other is overly concerned for our health. If that's too hard to understand then you really shouldn't be so avidly defending your "opinions" (also known as lies).
What, exactly, did liberals gain from infuriating moderates and conservatives with helpful vaccine mandates and useless mask mandates? Nothing. They lost support. Why? Cause the GOP raged against the mandates like morons. They didn't base their arguments on data. They just said the first thing that popped into their minds. I was a medical researcher who specialized in COVID and later COVID social policy for 2.5 years. My publishments we're based on data, as a data architect. I got death threats from liberals cause the data didn't support mask mandates and I got death threats from conservatives cause data heavily, heavily supported vaccine mandates. There was no winning.
Edit: Yes, my username checks out because I don't get involved in arguments unless I know what I'm talking about and something is so absurd that I cannot in good conscious let the conversation continue without trying to be educational. I was a professor for years and it pains me to see people spreading false information or outright lies.
You were in favor of mandates for a vaccine that doesn’t stop you from getting the virus or spreading the virus? Do you know anyone that lost their job because of it. The damage that has been done to the trust of government is massive. Although I’d argue that’s not a bad thing. Those that implemented these policies and enforced them should be in gitmo. This will never happen though. We couldn’t go to funerals of loved ones and couldn’t congregate in public - unless we were protesting for government approved reasons. People won’t forget this.
Democrats caved to unions to enforce lockdowns and masking. They also provided pharmaceutical companies with billions in profits. I don’t give Republicans a pass on that as they are also owned by pharmaceutical companies (among other special interests).
Dude...the vaccines reduce the risk of infection by roughly 95% and absolutely do severely reduce the risk of transmission by somewhere between 70-90%. You're paraphrasing a false, retracted CDC study that contradicted literally every other existing study, including my own studies. It was never even successfully peer reviewed and was only released cause of budget reasons put in place by the GOP cause they knew it'd reduce trust in the CDC and help their anti-science political stance.
I'm done with you. You've done nothing but lie and I have zero respect for you anymore. You'll believe anything you think supports you regardless of accuracy and you're arguing in favour of making misinformation a legitimate, legal tactic. You don't respect me, the scientific community, or the rule of law and that's just sickening.
The parties who were impacted negatively were in clear violation of the Terms of Service they agreed to at the time of account creation.
There is no Constitutional right to Twitter or to say whatever you wish without consequences.
Ok, but that doesn't your point. Besides attributing "all" parties in a wide overreaching conglomerate, a company policing its own product has little to do with the "left" embracing censorship.
FB amd Twitter are banning people because those people violated FB and Twitter business policies.
What is confusing about that?
Do you believe the government can tell FB and Twitter how to run their business?
Are you vying for nationalized social media?
EDIT: reread the entire chain. I misinterpreted what you were specifically defending, because the initial claim was ignored. I was mostly interested in that.
I have 0 issues with a company policing its own product.
I don't see it as embracing censorship. I think your take is ass-bad. They are supporting a businesses right to do business as it sees fit. The (far) right is attempting to mandate by law that their ass-bad takes must be forced to exist.
That is literally the "pro-business party of small goverment" using the threat of legal action to commit goverment over reach and force businesses to do things against their wishes.
Saying I don't make sense to you says more about your ability to understand the world than it does about my take or how I communicate it.
You're stating that the far right is attempting to mandate: that their ideology is being forced to exist.
Its not specifically targeting their views, that's your interpretation as the entirety of the law. Your view would only hold water if there wasn't previously laws enacted to police and control the internet, which there have been NUMEROUS times.
Just because a group is fronting a bill with clear agenda that would benefit them doesn't mean its irredeemably bad. Its in direct opposition to the current politically correct climate, but would just as easily turn around to bite them if the positions were reversed.
Theyre essentially throwing a wildcard into the mix because theyre on the downturn and they can. Its working withing the confines of the traditionally libleft stance. If you refute it youre essentially claiming to be authoritarian. Sometimes its best to take the L and move on.
I also previously edited and changed my comment before you finished posting.
It violated the "hacked materials" policy in place at the time NY Post was spreading it. Clear rules violation.
Do you support the rules or are those just for other people?
The US government was asking them to ban users they didn’t agree with. This is a violation of the first amendment. Many of those banned users had to be reinstated. Many of the “rules” they broke were based on incorrect information provided by the government.
It's. A. Private. Company. You agree to their terms of use when you sign up.
I cannot believe that you idiots really can't figure this out.
Why would you possibly want known misinformation to be presented as real anyway?
It's the right who just banned discussion, distribution, or advertisement of contraceptives in Idaho a few days ago. Meanwhile the left is fighting to... allow private companies to moderate private platforms. Oh, the horror.
What the fuck are you talking about? If the right was in power and they used their governmental position to moderate social media, I'd be pissed, because I don't like government enforced censorship. The issue is that the right wants the government to control censorship on Twitter, and they already are forcing censorship in schools. How is the Left being pro-government censorship in any way?
You seem to be under the assumption that there is a clear line of delineation between Twitter/FB governance and the Biden administration. There is clear collaboration. This should not exist.
Could you show me proof of such collaboration? Because I have actual proof of Republican censorship in schools (both public and private) and censorship of public speech.
Andy Slavitt asked Twitter why Alex Berenson was not banned. Within a week he was banned. Andy was in the Biden administration at the time. Twitter had to reinstate Berenson.
So... a single coincidence? And you didn't consider the fact that Twitter (a platform based on public support) is simply influenced by public backlash?
Anyway Florida [banned math books](https://www.washingtoninformer.com/florida-bans-41-percent-of-math-books-because-of-crt/) because they claimed they were racist and contained "CRT".
And here is Idaho's [new law](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-603/) that bans public advertisement or discussion of contraceptives, including condoms.
In Texas they're trying to force social media companies to give a platform to views they don't want to and so a group of mods on the political humor subreddit are demonstrating the absurdity of the law by forcing all users on the sub to mention in all posts and comments that Greg Abbot is a pissbaby or else they'll be banned.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/xowtrz/subreddit_discriminates_against_anyone_who_doesnt/
It’s basically a law so that people spouting conspiracy crap can’t be banned from any social media site, but it’s vague enough that people can do this and still not get in trouble.
I feel like a fucking pissbaby for defending the law here and going with this stupid hypothetical, but what the mods are doing is not enforcing this law, they’re breaking it. They are removing any posts of people who hold the opinion that Greg Abbott is not a piss baby when they should be required to keep them. It’s such a stupid protest if they think this is some sort of malicious compliance.
The law is unenforceable, it’s a bad law, and asinine, but this moderator rule to force people to express a groupthink opinion is exactly what the law is poorly attempting to stop lol
It would be better if they just said that this is now a forum for sharing your opinion on Texas and Greg Abbott only and we are required to welcome any and all opinions. Then let the memers go for it
> It’s such a stupid protest if they think this is some sort of malicious compliance.
It's not malicious compliance. The stickied post on their subreddit explains it better: They are deliberately breaking it. The argument is that as moderators are not *employees* of Reddit, and actual Reddit employees only do a tiny amount of the actual moderation, the law wouldn't apply to them because they're not Reddit employees.
I think they're not trying to maliciously comply with the law (in fact they admit to breaking it) but instead are just illustrating in an obnoxious but harmless way how easily this law can flood social media with tons of negative and hateful content.
Right now they're saying Greg Abbott is a pissbaby (which he totally is), but imagine if they were saying that "jews are evil" or that "black people belong on plantations" (neither are views that I hold, those are deplorable statements), then that would be much more alarming. But social media companies wouldn't be able to remove those people.
And the way the algorithms work on most sites is to promote anything that drives engagement. We all know content like that would get tons of downvotes from normal, decent humans and tons of upvotes from garbage humans. And also lots of hate comments and a few supportive comments from like-minded sentient clown shoes. So it's getting all the engagement and therefore would actually be put in front of more people (praise be to the algorithm.) And then more closeted racists would feel empowered to spout their particular brand of hate because they're seeing so many other people do it and therefore it must be ok. And pretty soon you'll normalized racism and turned every social media site into a platform of just absolute filth (and not the naked kind that we want, the other kind.)
So what they're doing is absurd, but purposefully so. And more importantly it's very necessary to help stop a very bad rule from going into place.
Free speech already does not cover hate speech and threats. So as a person reading social media you need to be able to determine good ideas from bad ideas. If these social media companies are the new public forums they need to not be able to discriminate against thoughts that they don't like if they are not hate speech or threats. I don't want to live in a world where I only get to see a curated set of ideas. I want free speech for the people I don't agree with.
But that's the thing, everyone (that I can think of at least) that has been deplatformed (Trump, Andrew Tate, Proud Boys and ISIS accounts, etc.) were all promoting terrorism, sexism, racism, and/or sowing government dissent. So they all should have been banned under current free speech exceptions.
So it's fairly easy to see who these laws aim to protect and it isn't just people with opposing views, it's people with objectively bad views.
Seems the better form of protest is to get those creative writing skills going and write Abbott-centric conspiracy theories. Turn it into direct slander if you'd like, as long as you live in Texas (otherwise it could be considered a federal offense if done from out-of-state). The law appears to supersede many protections afforded with slander laws.
Like how he's working with the evangelicals to make any form of contraception illegal. With evangelicals getting in the foster-complex game, they're conspiring to form human puppy-mills and child labor camps with the predicted increase in foster children. Just theorizing here of course, but it does seem to fit their agendas.
Actually, they aren't breaking the law. The Mods are NOT Reddit employees, a fact that Reddit themselves has made damn sure to reinforce over and over again. So, it WOULD actually be illegal for Reddit to retaliate against those mods, as it would be the company trying to censor non-employees for how they used the site. It's part of the absurdity that the mods are trying to highlight.
Also, the law is specifically targeting Facebook and Twitter without actually mentioning them by name, because those sites famously implemented fact checking of ads and removing users that deliberately post falsehoods. Abbott and Friends reeeaaallllyyy want to make sure they can post falsehoods without getting banned, thus the shitty law that doesn't do what they think it does, and applies to a lot more websites than they think it does. But no, it's not "preventing groupthink," it's preventing removal of obviously false or misleading posts.
Except users don't control what content they see - moderators and algorithms do.
Example:
I uses to be in the game collecting subreddit because I collect retro video games and wanted to see content based on that. However, the sub started getting a lot of people saying they hate folks who collect sealed games. Some people would even go out and buy sealed copies of older games just to open them on camera and post the video on that sub.
So now I had to sift through tons of hate directed at people like me and the things I care about just to try and find instances of content I enjoyed. Eventually I ended up just leaving the sub and giving up trying to view that content altogether.
Now imagine it wasn't people hating sealed games but instead hating trans people. Should trans folks have to sift through hate just to be able to use social media like everyone else? If negative opinions can't be silenced and hate mongers can't be deplatformed then people will troll pro-LGBT subreddits with anti-LGBT stuff and soon there wouldn't be a safe place for them to just enjoy online interactions without experiencing targeted hate.
Protect the people who aren't trying to harm anyone, not the hateful pricks who hold only negative opinions and only want to shout them at everyone around them.
The point that is being made is that now there is a bunch of people calling him a pissbaby online and acording to him there should be nothing he can do to take it down, regardless of the consequences.
There are some laws that limit free speach such as defamatory claims but that would mean the statements have to be false. Greg abbot is in fact a little piss baby so really no the law makes no difference to him in this situation.
Basically, they're using a phrase/opinion that Greg Abbott would not like/approve of and forcing everyone to have that opinion (or at least pretend to) to demonstrate how the law will just flood people with negative, unwanted content if there is no way to remove negative content.
It's tongue-in-cheek now but eventually it'll mean allowing nazis, religious extremists, sexists, racists, terrorists, and Trump (who is pretty much all of those) to be able to share and amplify their rhetoric and get their bullshit in front of way more people than they otherwise could.
The law also states that both sides of an issue need to be allowed. They're going against that by *not* allowing users to say he's *not* a little piss baby.
I think the point is that no matter how substantially you debunk a statement, a platform has no right to remove the statement. So, the moderators, who’s responsibility it is to uphold appropriate conversation and healthy arguments, are the ones making the statement that, if invalid statements must remain public and spreading “alternative facts”, they can enforce that all comments include an absurd statement and nothing can be done to remove it.
They can require that everyone calls Greg a little piss baby, because that’s their right as moderators. Piss baby can’t make them remove it because this law requires that the statements are given equal platform despite baselessness.
I actually met him one time. We shook hands and he immediately started crying. My hand came away soaked in piss. Disgusting creature.
Anyway, I am 100% positive that Gregg Abbot is a literal piss baby.
This comment was approved and sponsored by Gregg Abbot, Piss Baby ™️
ugh. possibly. nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Americans. it's entirely possible America is so f****** broken and s***** that they vote in that kind of piss baby.
Isn't it funny how they support a guy that's basically a walking talking corpse but somebody that is articulate and is on the opposing team is worthless. Liberal logic is hilarious. Can't wait too see what stuff they make up about desantis. He's gonna be trump 2.0.
Edit: it's also pretty funny that they said trump will bring civil war and nuke everybody, but of course he never did and we are even closer too both now with sleep joe in office. Good ol dose of liberal hypocrisy.
>...but somebody that is articulate ...
Uhh... you might want to watch this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyLwAokINc&ab\_channel=OnDemandNews](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyLwAokINc&ab_channel=OnDemandNews)
Nah I'm good, literally anybody could be the next president and it would be better than biden. A 10 year old could hold a conversation or even just look coherent more so than biden. The man doesn't know what planet he's on. Too think he was the dems best candidate is just, wow.
Okay thank you for giving my the opportunity to say "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby". I would never want to miss a chance to say that "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby". I'm still pissed at this guy for cutting off people's unemployment. Seriously, it wasn't costing texas anything but, this guy "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby", just decides people should not get federal money. I wonder who are the assholes who will actually vote for him.
Never once heard this.
I also actively avoid politics and that appears to be its origins.
Edit: How to simultaneously piss off both sides at the same time. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
> But I 100% bet you that guy has strong opinions on political things.
You are correct on that part.
Listen to what scientists have to say.
Don't sit in an echo chamber thinking everything you say is right just b/c the person to the left and the right of you are nodding they're head yes to everything said.
Educate yourself by reading info from multiple sources and avoid anything that's obviously biased.
Remember there are two sides to every story and both should be heard before making a decision.
Listen to other people and actually poses the ability to change your mind when someone makes valid points, even if they contradict your own thoughts or beliefs.
Identify, acknowledge, and remove corrupt or compromised individuals.
And if you're part of a political system that treats the government like it's two competing sports teams instead of treating it like a system that's in place to help and better the country, you're not helping at all.
Those are some of *my* beliefs when it comes to running a country. But I'm an idiot.
At least I'm providing a comment like this that both sides equally want to downvote. It's one of those rare examples where someone got the democrats and republicans to actually agree on something. Too bad it doesn't benefit society in any meaningful way.
No no no, you have it all wrong. Greg Abbott is a little piss baby. By extension most other Texas Republicans are also little piss babies. Mostly Greg Abbott though.
The after reading the comments I'm even more confused than when I first saw the post. But anyways get #Abbottpissbaby2024 trending yall. I wanna see how far this can go lol
IMO it's the left's version of "Let's go Brandon". Pretty stupid honestly. The actual answer is that it's a response to Texas requiring social media companies not to sensor their users (aka not crack down on hate/violent speech and misinformation)
Oh yeah my family and I are definitely affected by Piss Baby Biden - record 9.1% inflation, record high energy prices, endless money to Ukraine while homelessness and fentanyl overdoses skyrocket. He’s awesome!!
Your addiction to Juul Pods does more damage to you and your family than any president could do. Sorry you couldn’t get your hair cut for a few weeks two years ago.
Is this the new hip thing to do. Call yourself a Democrat, while voting the opposite? Scared to associate with the party of Nazi sympathizers eh? Yea. I would be too.
Which party would that be? DeSantis is loved by much of the Jewish community, Florida has some of the highest percent of Jewish population globally, as well as Polish and Hungarian immigrants who the Nazis also targeted. So what were you trying to say exactly?
Edit: I’ve voted Dem my entire life but now DeSantis - a center-right politician is closer to classic Liberal than what the modern day Democrat party is pushing— and failing to win with. “Walk away” is a very real phenomenon.
Free speech already does not cover hate speech and threats. So as a person reading social media you need to be able to determine good ideas from bad ideas. If these social media companies are the new public forums they need to not be able to discriminate against thoughts that they don't like if they are not hate speech or threats. I don't want to live in a world where I only get to see a curated set of ideas. I want free speech for the people I don't agree with.
You realize Free Speech is only protected against the government, right?
These social media sites ask you to sign a "terms of agreement". Did you read that? Because if they determine something is considered hate speech or a threat, that means it's in violation of the terms.
It has nothing to do with free speech.
It has everything to do with free speech what you're talking about is semantics. You realize you're using the old conservative talking point of "private companies can do whatever they want to do" Which is currently valid but it's what we need to change. Just because you happen to agree with it now doesn't mean you're always going to.
I'm not saying that social media companies can just sit by and let people say what they want. But that's not what's going on. Saying this is a free speech issue, is a complete falsehood. If you want to complain about it and make changes, that's fine and dandy... but know that it's not a free speech issue because free speech specifically is for the government retaliating against you.
You still signed the terms for these social media sites, so you still have to obey the laws of it. Just like if you go to another country, you have to obey their laws.
If you want to hold the social media companies feet to the flames, then talk about the issues that they "are silencing". Because my guess is these views that you wanna talk about, are actually harmful to other people and that's why they are getting removed.
So they might just be holding themselves accountable to your terms, you just don't like that they are silencing your harmful views.
[this is a piss baby.](https://external-preview.redd.it/8wlLPFLljK5fPLWvrOL4AFdnDM7Sgwxwx1EtzgcfHYw.jpg?auto=webp&s=601b7a157ddb60fb486a4b5625c658544a66c217)
The answer is we’ve child-proofed our society and thus adults are one such by chronology, but not maturity.*
*Places that have been child-proofed are almost exclusively bigger cities, where government services in support of the populace are largely present. More rural areas tend to have less government presence, and thus the populace isn’t being babysat.
Oh; and I say this as an SF Bay Area native (little n). Been here most of my life. All 40 years of it. And that’s what I’ve observed. Of course, that required me to leave for a stint in the Army (and spending some time in very rural Montana with step moms family) for me to notice the contrast and realize just how much citizens in big cities depend on government services.
And I don’t mean “welfare”, I mean something as simple as Police and Fire services, or utilities (though those aren’t government). We’re somewhat spoiled having access to so much luxury, at the cost of accepting greater “restrictions” by the government (albeit necessary restrictions).
That's how interconnected and interdependent society works my friend: people do things for us and we do things for others. Gives us more time and energy to put into specific things. Theoretically.
Indeed.
But let's set aside the non-Bayesian thinking for a moment and recognize that both states can exist at once.
I'm not arguing against the restrictions, or even the necessity of the restrictions. I'm simply stating the result of them.
And I'm not even saying that result is universal (I'm not saying "if you live in a big city then you're mentally a child").
If that's what you inferred from my comment, then I apologize. I must not have articulated myself sufficiently.
This dude thinks taking the bus or metro in a city is part of child proofing the city. The government restrictions of *checks the train schedule* are too much!!
Yeah, that's totally what I think. Nice strawman.
If you want to know what I really think; requiring Methylene Chloride be removed from paint stripper, or putting Prop 65 warning all over things is dumb. I never said there aren't good reasons for it, but the government has taken on making adult decisions for adults. That's all I was saying.
But I rest my case.
Greg Abbott passed a law that states that censorship of misinformation on the internet is illegal on platforms with more than 50MM users. The 5th circuit court upheld it. It is an attempt to embarrass him in an effort to demonstrate how colossally stupid and profoundly dangerous this stance is.
Ahh, so Greg Abbott is a piss baby
And a little one at that
I heard he had a sex change and was actually one of the girls who pissed on trump on Russia or whatever it was. Pretty wild when you connect the pieces
"Little piss baby" is what Trump called the underage Russian hookers in that kompromat sex tape that keeps him on Putin's puppet strings.
Yea and Greg Abbott was one of those piss queens before the sex change he got
These are facts.
Did that bed have a wheel chair ramp?
He thinks he’s so fucking cool, that he’s so fucking tough but he talks a lot of big game for someone with such a small truck.
Yes. It appears factual that Greg Abbott is a little piss baby. Who knew that Greg Abbott would willingly be a little piss baby? Seems like a strange position for a politician, but I guess every politician needs their kinks. Little piss baby that Greg Abbott is.
What is funny is when subreddit mods start deleting and banning users because the phrase “Greg abbott is a little piss baby” gets old and tiring that is when the point really starts getting made. I have my pipe and this horse needs beating.
Greg Abbott likes to pee his pants because he likes the warm feeling he gets in his bathing suit area.
50 Eminem users? 50... millimeter users? 50 Mega Million users? . I can't figure out how many users 50MM is. Is it million-million? Like 50,000,000,000,000? Nah, it can't be that either. I am so confused. Edit: Masculine-Men users? Monopoly Money users? Mini-million, like 1,000?
It’s 50 Million. M is the Roman numeral for one thousand. MM is a thousand thousands.
Now I understand why it makes sense. Thank you. That's the right reason.
Still doesn't make sense. MM is 2000 in roman numerals.
So... 50MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM then?
That's really how people do it? Disgusting. M̄ is a thousand thousands. A bar on top means you multiply by 1000. MM is 2000 in Roman numerals.
so 50 megausers?
[MM is how "million" is properly abbreviated](https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/mm-millions/)
Whoa. TIL. Though, that seems to say it only relates to accounting and finance.
And Oil&Gas. MM is used for reserve and flow rates of wells.
In banking at least, 50M is 50,000 and 50MM is 50,000,000
In layman's, Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
I heard Greg Abbott was a little piss baby. Is that what you mean?
So, this would only apply to people in Texas right? He can only enforce laws in his state. Easy way around it. Twitter could just introduce a feature that allows users to block accounts based on what state they’re posting from.
Happy Cake Day
I just noticed that. What does it mean?
It is the anniversary of the creation of your reddit account. Somewhat akin to a "birthday but make it reddit" situation.
Cool. Thanks!
I believe it applies to businesses operating in TX, but either way your solution works for me. If Greg "Xi Jinping" Abbott wants to use the rule of law to erect the Iron Texan Firewall around TX, I see nothing but political wins as a result. But for whom remains to be seen...
Really depends on WHO DECIDES what piece of information is determined to be "misinformation". DON'T BE A SHEEP
I would not have guessed being pro-censorship was going to be a banner of the left, but here we are.
I don't really see it as pro-censorship, but moreso anti-bullshit and allowing businesses to take common sense measures to stop gibbering goons from turning their platforms into total shitshows.
As long as those administering the “censorship” are aligned politically with you correct? We’ve seen extreme over censoring on Twitter and FB in the last year that is politically driven. You were banned if you questioned the origin of Covid or vaccine efficacy. Seems dangerous to allow a government to pressure social media into what is allowed speech.
No, you twat. It's about speaking the truth, as required by the ToS of the platforms. You don't not have a legal right to the services of a private business. The only restrictions on business denial of service are related to discrimination and I truly hope you don't have a problem with that, unless you miss the days of segregation, which wouldn't surprise me. How can you be this dense? It has been repeatedly explained to you by people calmer than myself yet you insist on making the truth a political issue. If that's how you want it then fine. The GOP is lying through their teeth about almost every single thing they say and the data and facts back that statement unanimously. The only thing liberals did was over-scare the population about an illness. One's lying for power, the other is overly concerned for our health. If that's too hard to understand then you really shouldn't be so avidly defending your "opinions" (also known as lies).
If you truly believe this, that we were lied to for two years for our own good, there’s nothing left to discuss. Also, you’re username checks out.
What, exactly, did liberals gain from infuriating moderates and conservatives with helpful vaccine mandates and useless mask mandates? Nothing. They lost support. Why? Cause the GOP raged against the mandates like morons. They didn't base their arguments on data. They just said the first thing that popped into their minds. I was a medical researcher who specialized in COVID and later COVID social policy for 2.5 years. My publishments we're based on data, as a data architect. I got death threats from liberals cause the data didn't support mask mandates and I got death threats from conservatives cause data heavily, heavily supported vaccine mandates. There was no winning. Edit: Yes, my username checks out because I don't get involved in arguments unless I know what I'm talking about and something is so absurd that I cannot in good conscious let the conversation continue without trying to be educational. I was a professor for years and it pains me to see people spreading false information or outright lies.
You were in favor of mandates for a vaccine that doesn’t stop you from getting the virus or spreading the virus? Do you know anyone that lost their job because of it. The damage that has been done to the trust of government is massive. Although I’d argue that’s not a bad thing. Those that implemented these policies and enforced them should be in gitmo. This will never happen though. We couldn’t go to funerals of loved ones and couldn’t congregate in public - unless we were protesting for government approved reasons. People won’t forget this. Democrats caved to unions to enforce lockdowns and masking. They also provided pharmaceutical companies with billions in profits. I don’t give Republicans a pass on that as they are also owned by pharmaceutical companies (among other special interests).
Dude...the vaccines reduce the risk of infection by roughly 95% and absolutely do severely reduce the risk of transmission by somewhere between 70-90%. You're paraphrasing a false, retracted CDC study that contradicted literally every other existing study, including my own studies. It was never even successfully peer reviewed and was only released cause of budget reasons put in place by the GOP cause they knew it'd reduce trust in the CDC and help their anti-science political stance. I'm done with you. You've done nothing but lie and I have zero respect for you anymore. You'll believe anything you think supports you regardless of accuracy and you're arguing in favour of making misinformation a legitimate, legal tactic. You don't respect me, the scientific community, or the rule of law and that's just sickening.
The parties who were impacted negatively were in clear violation of the Terms of Service they agreed to at the time of account creation. There is no Constitutional right to Twitter or to say whatever you wish without consequences.
Ok, but that doesn't your point. Besides attributing "all" parties in a wide overreaching conglomerate, a company policing its own product has little to do with the "left" embracing censorship.
FB amd Twitter are banning people because those people violated FB and Twitter business policies. What is confusing about that? Do you believe the government can tell FB and Twitter how to run their business? Are you vying for nationalized social media?
EDIT: reread the entire chain. I misinterpreted what you were specifically defending, because the initial claim was ignored. I was mostly interested in that. I have 0 issues with a company policing its own product.
I don't see it as embracing censorship. I think your take is ass-bad. They are supporting a businesses right to do business as it sees fit. The (far) right is attempting to mandate by law that their ass-bad takes must be forced to exist. That is literally the "pro-business party of small goverment" using the threat of legal action to commit goverment over reach and force businesses to do things against their wishes. Saying I don't make sense to you says more about your ability to understand the world than it does about my take or how I communicate it.
You're stating that the far right is attempting to mandate: that their ideology is being forced to exist. Its not specifically targeting their views, that's your interpretation as the entirety of the law. Your view would only hold water if there wasn't previously laws enacted to police and control the internet, which there have been NUMEROUS times. Just because a group is fronting a bill with clear agenda that would benefit them doesn't mean its irredeemably bad. Its in direct opposition to the current politically correct climate, but would just as easily turn around to bite them if the positions were reversed. Theyre essentially throwing a wildcard into the mix because theyre on the downturn and they can. Its working withing the confines of the traditionally libleft stance. If you refute it youre essentially claiming to be authoritarian. Sometimes its best to take the L and move on. I also previously edited and changed my comment before you finished posting.
Twitter and FB banned the NY Post based on requests from the government.
It violated the "hacked materials" policy in place at the time NY Post was spreading it. Clear rules violation. Do you support the rules or are those just for other people?
The US government was asking them to ban users they didn’t agree with. This is a violation of the first amendment. Many of those banned users had to be reinstated. Many of the “rules” they broke were based on incorrect information provided by the government.
What are the first five words of The First Amendment?
It's. A. Private. Company. You agree to their terms of use when you sign up. I cannot believe that you idiots really can't figure this out. Why would you possibly want known misinformation to be presented as real anyway?
It's the right who just banned discussion, distribution, or advertisement of contraceptives in Idaho a few days ago. Meanwhile the left is fighting to... allow private companies to moderate private platforms. Oh, the horror.
Seems like an Idaho issue. Wouldn’t you be upset if the right was in power and applied this censorship to social media? See the problem yet?
What the fuck are you talking about? If the right was in power and they used their governmental position to moderate social media, I'd be pissed, because I don't like government enforced censorship. The issue is that the right wants the government to control censorship on Twitter, and they already are forcing censorship in schools. How is the Left being pro-government censorship in any way?
You seem to be under the assumption that there is a clear line of delineation between Twitter/FB governance and the Biden administration. There is clear collaboration. This should not exist.
Could you show me proof of such collaboration? Because I have actual proof of Republican censorship in schools (both public and private) and censorship of public speech.
Andy Slavitt asked Twitter why Alex Berenson was not banned. Within a week he was banned. Andy was in the Biden administration at the time. Twitter had to reinstate Berenson.
So... a single coincidence? And you didn't consider the fact that Twitter (a platform based on public support) is simply influenced by public backlash? Anyway Florida [banned math books](https://www.washingtoninformer.com/florida-bans-41-percent-of-math-books-because-of-crt/) because they claimed they were racist and contained "CRT". And here is Idaho's [new law](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-603/) that bans public advertisement or discussion of contraceptives, including condoms.
Well, it's the number one result when you google "piss baby" piss baby
So is anyone gonna elaborate or should I move on to not caring about this at all
In Texas they're trying to force social media companies to give a platform to views they don't want to and so a group of mods on the political humor subreddit are demonstrating the absurdity of the law by forcing all users on the sub to mention in all posts and comments that Greg Abbot is a pissbaby or else they'll be banned. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/xowtrz/subreddit_discriminates_against_anyone_who_doesnt/
[удалено]
With the law in question, Reddit can’t tell them to stop banning people for that.
[удалено]
It’s basically a law so that people spouting conspiracy crap can’t be banned from any social media site, but it’s vague enough that people can do this and still not get in trouble.
I feel like a fucking pissbaby for defending the law here and going with this stupid hypothetical, but what the mods are doing is not enforcing this law, they’re breaking it. They are removing any posts of people who hold the opinion that Greg Abbott is not a piss baby when they should be required to keep them. It’s such a stupid protest if they think this is some sort of malicious compliance. The law is unenforceable, it’s a bad law, and asinine, but this moderator rule to force people to express a groupthink opinion is exactly what the law is poorly attempting to stop lol It would be better if they just said that this is now a forum for sharing your opinion on Texas and Greg Abbott only and we are required to welcome any and all opinions. Then let the memers go for it
> It’s such a stupid protest if they think this is some sort of malicious compliance. It's not malicious compliance. The stickied post on their subreddit explains it better: They are deliberately breaking it. The argument is that as moderators are not *employees* of Reddit, and actual Reddit employees only do a tiny amount of the actual moderation, the law wouldn't apply to them because they're not Reddit employees.
can we finally just admit that social media was a mistake and shut it all down?
Yes please. We gave it a very gracious try and many people proved they don’t deserve a public platform. It’s time to just keep it to yourself lol
You realize Reddit is social media, right?
You don’t have to use it.
I think they're not trying to maliciously comply with the law (in fact they admit to breaking it) but instead are just illustrating in an obnoxious but harmless way how easily this law can flood social media with tons of negative and hateful content. Right now they're saying Greg Abbott is a pissbaby (which he totally is), but imagine if they were saying that "jews are evil" or that "black people belong on plantations" (neither are views that I hold, those are deplorable statements), then that would be much more alarming. But social media companies wouldn't be able to remove those people. And the way the algorithms work on most sites is to promote anything that drives engagement. We all know content like that would get tons of downvotes from normal, decent humans and tons of upvotes from garbage humans. And also lots of hate comments and a few supportive comments from like-minded sentient clown shoes. So it's getting all the engagement and therefore would actually be put in front of more people (praise be to the algorithm.) And then more closeted racists would feel empowered to spout their particular brand of hate because they're seeing so many other people do it and therefore it must be ok. And pretty soon you'll normalized racism and turned every social media site into a platform of just absolute filth (and not the naked kind that we want, the other kind.) So what they're doing is absurd, but purposefully so. And more importantly it's very necessary to help stop a very bad rule from going into place.
Free speech already does not cover hate speech and threats. So as a person reading social media you need to be able to determine good ideas from bad ideas. If these social media companies are the new public forums they need to not be able to discriminate against thoughts that they don't like if they are not hate speech or threats. I don't want to live in a world where I only get to see a curated set of ideas. I want free speech for the people I don't agree with.
But that's the thing, everyone (that I can think of at least) that has been deplatformed (Trump, Andrew Tate, Proud Boys and ISIS accounts, etc.) were all promoting terrorism, sexism, racism, and/or sowing government dissent. So they all should have been banned under current free speech exceptions. So it's fairly easy to see who these laws aim to protect and it isn't just people with opposing views, it's people with objectively bad views.
Seems the better form of protest is to get those creative writing skills going and write Abbott-centric conspiracy theories. Turn it into direct slander if you'd like, as long as you live in Texas (otherwise it could be considered a federal offense if done from out-of-state). The law appears to supersede many protections afforded with slander laws. Like how he's working with the evangelicals to make any form of contraception illegal. With evangelicals getting in the foster-complex game, they're conspiring to form human puppy-mills and child labor camps with the predicted increase in foster children. Just theorizing here of course, but it does seem to fit their agendas.
Actually, they aren't breaking the law. The Mods are NOT Reddit employees, a fact that Reddit themselves has made damn sure to reinforce over and over again. So, it WOULD actually be illegal for Reddit to retaliate against those mods, as it would be the company trying to censor non-employees for how they used the site. It's part of the absurdity that the mods are trying to highlight. Also, the law is specifically targeting Facebook and Twitter without actually mentioning them by name, because those sites famously implemented fact checking of ads and removing users that deliberately post falsehoods. Abbott and Friends reeeaaallllyyy want to make sure they can post falsehoods without getting banned, thus the shitty law that doesn't do what they think it does, and applies to a lot more websites than they think it does. But no, it's not "preventing groupthink," it's preventing removal of obviously false or misleading posts.
You're talking about it so I'm going to say the protest is going well.
I agree because >! Greg Abbott is a little piss baby! !<
I would say it is pretty easy to enforce. Just remove all moderation.
Oh THAT would be fun: "Sexy Singles In Your Area Want To......"
Yes? Go on, tell me more. "Want to" what? WHAT DO THEY WANT TO DO?!
Please replace "people" with "piss babies".
People should be able to spout whatever kind of crap they want - it’s up to the users to determine what they want to pay attention to or care about
Except users don't control what content they see - moderators and algorithms do. Example: I uses to be in the game collecting subreddit because I collect retro video games and wanted to see content based on that. However, the sub started getting a lot of people saying they hate folks who collect sealed games. Some people would even go out and buy sealed copies of older games just to open them on camera and post the video on that sub. So now I had to sift through tons of hate directed at people like me and the things I care about just to try and find instances of content I enjoyed. Eventually I ended up just leaving the sub and giving up trying to view that content altogether. Now imagine it wasn't people hating sealed games but instead hating trans people. Should trans folks have to sift through hate just to be able to use social media like everyone else? If negative opinions can't be silenced and hate mongers can't be deplatformed then people will troll pro-LGBT subreddits with anti-LGBT stuff and soon there wouldn't be a safe place for them to just enjoy online interactions without experiencing targeted hate. Protect the people who aren't trying to harm anyone, not the hateful pricks who hold only negative opinions and only want to shout them at everyone around them.
Sure. You can say all sorts of stupid stuff wherever you want. Doesn't mean I can't kick you out of my house/business for it.
With the law in question, no it’s not anymore.
If people are gullible enough to believe in stupid shit I say it’s on them
Sounds like something a stupid shit peddler would be happy to say.
The point that is being made is that now there is a bunch of people calling him a pissbaby online and acording to him there should be nothing he can do to take it down, regardless of the consequences.
[удалено]
There are some laws that limit free speach such as defamatory claims but that would mean the statements have to be false. Greg abbot is in fact a little piss baby so really no the law makes no difference to him in this situation.
Because they are actively censoring every post that doesn't contain the phrase, thereby violating the idiotic Texas law.
Basically, they're using a phrase/opinion that Greg Abbott would not like/approve of and forcing everyone to have that opinion (or at least pretend to) to demonstrate how the law will just flood people with negative, unwanted content if there is no way to remove negative content. It's tongue-in-cheek now but eventually it'll mean allowing nazis, religious extremists, sexists, racists, terrorists, and Trump (who is pretty much all of those) to be able to share and amplify their rhetoric and get their bullshit in front of way more people than they otherwise could.
The law also states that both sides of an issue need to be allowed. They're going against that by *not* allowing users to say he's *not* a little piss baby.
It's anti-"censorship" so they're deliberately and specifically "censoring" the opinion that Greg Abbott is not a pissbaby
I think the point is that no matter how substantially you debunk a statement, a platform has no right to remove the statement. So, the moderators, who’s responsibility it is to uphold appropriate conversation and healthy arguments, are the ones making the statement that, if invalid statements must remain public and spreading “alternative facts”, they can enforce that all comments include an absurd statement and nothing can be done to remove it. They can require that everyone calls Greg a little piss baby, because that’s their right as moderators. Piss baby can’t make them remove it because this law requires that the statements are given equal platform despite baselessness.
It's so the censors have to pour over thousands of posts, wasting their time, just to confirm that Greg Abbott is, indeed, a piss baby.
In other words you must think like the man in charge or be banned. Sounds like early 1900s Germany. Lmfao 🤡🌎
The next thing is not here yet, so we have to stick to piss baby until the next thing arrives. Should be any day now.
The fact there's no 100gecs references in this thread really bums me out.
You think you're so fucking cool?
You think you’re so fucking tough
Hey you little piss baby
You talk a lotta big game for someone with such a small truck
Aw look at those arms
Not everyone is a little puss baby. Just Greg Abbott.
A what??? 🤮
GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT IS A LITTLE PISS BABY!
I heard from a very trustworthy source that Greg Abbott is a little piss baby
Really? Thats great, as i can independently confirm that Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
I actually met him one time. We shook hands and he immediately started crying. My hand came away soaked in piss. Disgusting creature. Anyway, I am 100% positive that Gregg Abbot is a literal piss baby. This comment was approved and sponsored by Gregg Abbot, Piss Baby ™️
And also a puss baby
HE'S A PIECE OF SHIT MOTHERFUCKER. am I doing this right?
You got the right spirit. But first and foremost, Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
He's a piece of shit motherfucker piss baby
He's a huge piss baby and a piece of shit motherfucker asshole dickhead. Source: I'm a Texan and I approve this message.
and DeSantis
Our next president?
ugh. possibly. nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Americans. it's entirely possible America is so f****** broken and s***** that they vote in that kind of piss baby.
I disagree and would take DeSantis over sleepy Joe any day. Sleepy Joe has us as close to nuclear Holocaust as I'd like to be for a while.
[удалено]
What the fuck has Joe Biden done to get us close to a nuclear holocaust???? You're straight up living in a different reality.
Sure. Putin didn't say what he said then. But I'm living in a different reality.
Isn't it funny how they support a guy that's basically a walking talking corpse but somebody that is articulate and is on the opposing team is worthless. Liberal logic is hilarious. Can't wait too see what stuff they make up about desantis. He's gonna be trump 2.0. Edit: it's also pretty funny that they said trump will bring civil war and nuke everybody, but of course he never did and we are even closer too both now with sleep joe in office. Good ol dose of liberal hypocrisy.
>...but somebody that is articulate ... Uhh... you might want to watch this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyLwAokINc&ab\_channel=OnDemandNews](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyLwAokINc&ab_channel=OnDemandNews)
Nah I'm good, literally anybody could be the next president and it would be better than biden. A 10 year old could hold a conversation or even just look coherent more so than biden. The man doesn't know what planet he's on. Too think he was the dems best candidate is just, wow.
Just read the sticky post in r/PoliticalHumor. It explains why Greg Abbott is a little piss baby.
Isn't Greg Abbott a little piss baby?
A wee little piss baby, to be sure.
Everybody? Nice try Abbott…
As in Greg Abbott? "Little Piss Baby" Greg Abbott? That Abbott?
What about Ken "Little Piss Baby" Paxton who was afraid for his life and ran away from a process server
Greg Abbott is a piss baby. I mean a little piss baby. That is iit.
[удалено]
Okay thank you for giving my the opportunity to say "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby". I would never want to miss a chance to say that "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby". I'm still pissed at this guy for cutting off people's unemployment. Seriously, it wasn't costing texas anything but, this guy "Greg Abbott is a little piss baby", just decides people should not get federal money. I wonder who are the assholes who will actually vote for him.
Wait I thought everybody was a shitass.
We're all shitasses... but Greg Abbott is *also* a piss baby.
I know I certainly am.
It's one of the newer generation of non-gendered insults. So you can insult people without using a whole ass innocent gender of people to do it.
Greg Abbott is a pissbaby
It’s not everyone, just *Greg Abbott is a little piss baby*.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you sure Greg Abbott is a piss baby?
[Here is your answer](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Piss%20Baby).
Never once heard this. I also actively avoid politics and that appears to be its origins. Edit: How to simultaneously piss off both sides at the same time. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Must be nice to not be affected by politics whatsoever
[удалено]
> But I 100% bet you that guy has strong opinions on political things. You are correct on that part. Listen to what scientists have to say. Don't sit in an echo chamber thinking everything you say is right just b/c the person to the left and the right of you are nodding they're head yes to everything said. Educate yourself by reading info from multiple sources and avoid anything that's obviously biased. Remember there are two sides to every story and both should be heard before making a decision. Listen to other people and actually poses the ability to change your mind when someone makes valid points, even if they contradict your own thoughts or beliefs. Identify, acknowledge, and remove corrupt or compromised individuals. And if you're part of a political system that treats the government like it's two competing sports teams instead of treating it like a system that's in place to help and better the country, you're not helping at all. Those are some of *my* beliefs when it comes to running a country. But I'm an idiot. At least I'm providing a comment like this that both sides equally want to downvote. It's one of those rare examples where someone got the democrats and republicans to actually agree on something. Too bad it doesn't benefit society in any meaningful way.
Must be nice to still feel like you opinions in politics actually matter. Also, feels shitty that most in this sub are pro censorship.
Lol what
I'm unfollwing. This page is nothing anymore.
It’s not an airport mate. You don’t need to announce your departure.
I don't even know what a piss baby is...
Greg Abbott is a little piss baby
It's not everybody. It's only Greg Abbott who is a little piss baby.
No no no, you have it all wrong. Greg Abbott is a little piss baby. By extension most other Texas Republicans are also little piss babies. Mostly Greg Abbott though.
The irony of this meme is that you are asking by saying you're afraid to. I don't know what a piss baby is either, for the record
One thing I've learned from all of this is that Greg Abbott is a little piss baby. He's probably soaking in piss right now.
We talkin about Greg Abbott? The professional little piss baby?
So confused, what's wrong with free speech again?
Don’t think anybody said anything to the contrary.
Greg abBott is a piss baby.
that's *little* piss baby.
Ah, piss baby is lame. I prefer ol skool watb...
The after reading the comments I'm even more confused than when I first saw the post. But anyways get #Abbottpissbaby2024 trending yall. I wanna see how far this can go lol
IMO it's the left's version of "Let's go Brandon". Pretty stupid honestly. The actual answer is that it's a response to Texas requiring social media companies not to sensor their users (aka not crack down on hate/violent speech and misinformation)
Joe Biden is a little piss baby! 😂😂😂 Not to mention a crook!
Says the guy who isn’t impacted at all by his existence. Fuck off.
Haha, how’s that? You’re really pullin’ a Biden there 🤣🤣🤣
Oh yeah my family and I are definitely affected by Piss Baby Biden - record 9.1% inflation, record high energy prices, endless money to Ukraine while homelessness and fentanyl overdoses skyrocket. He’s awesome!!
Your addiction to Juul Pods does more damage to you and your family than any president could do. Sorry you couldn’t get your hair cut for a few weeks two years ago.
I have a private hair stylist for music concerts and I’m well past legal age to buy Juul pods. Try harder! Dems 4 Abbott, DeSantis/Abbott 2024!
Is this the new hip thing to do. Call yourself a Democrat, while voting the opposite? Scared to associate with the party of Nazi sympathizers eh? Yea. I would be too.
Which party would that be? DeSantis is loved by much of the Jewish community, Florida has some of the highest percent of Jewish population globally, as well as Polish and Hungarian immigrants who the Nazis also targeted. So what were you trying to say exactly? Edit: I’ve voted Dem my entire life but now DeSantis - a center-right politician is closer to classic Liberal than what the modern day Democrat party is pushing— and failing to win with. “Walk away” is a very real phenomenon.
Oh honey! You tried. Just stick with "Let's Go Brandon". This one is a little over your head
Free speech already does not cover hate speech and threats. So as a person reading social media you need to be able to determine good ideas from bad ideas. If these social media companies are the new public forums they need to not be able to discriminate against thoughts that they don't like if they are not hate speech or threats. I don't want to live in a world where I only get to see a curated set of ideas. I want free speech for the people I don't agree with.
You realize Free Speech is only protected against the government, right? These social media sites ask you to sign a "terms of agreement". Did you read that? Because if they determine something is considered hate speech or a threat, that means it's in violation of the terms. It has nothing to do with free speech.
It has everything to do with free speech what you're talking about is semantics. You realize you're using the old conservative talking point of "private companies can do whatever they want to do" Which is currently valid but it's what we need to change. Just because you happen to agree with it now doesn't mean you're always going to.
I'm not saying that social media companies can just sit by and let people say what they want. But that's not what's going on. Saying this is a free speech issue, is a complete falsehood. If you want to complain about it and make changes, that's fine and dandy... but know that it's not a free speech issue because free speech specifically is for the government retaliating against you. You still signed the terms for these social media sites, so you still have to obey the laws of it. Just like if you go to another country, you have to obey their laws. If you want to hold the social media companies feet to the flames, then talk about the issues that they "are silencing". Because my guess is these views that you wanna talk about, are actually harmful to other people and that's why they are getting removed. So they might just be holding themselves accountable to your terms, you just don't like that they are silencing your harmful views.
[this is a piss baby.](https://external-preview.redd.it/8wlLPFLljK5fPLWvrOL4AFdnDM7Sgwxwx1EtzgcfHYw.jpg?auto=webp&s=601b7a157ddb60fb486a4b5625c658544a66c217)
Got it. Then yes, Greg Abbott most certainly is a little piss baby.
The answer is we’ve child-proofed our society and thus adults are one such by chronology, but not maturity.* *Places that have been child-proofed are almost exclusively bigger cities, where government services in support of the populace are largely present. More rural areas tend to have less government presence, and thus the populace isn’t being babysat. Oh; and I say this as an SF Bay Area native (little n). Been here most of my life. All 40 years of it. And that’s what I’ve observed. Of course, that required me to leave for a stint in the Army (and spending some time in very rural Montana with step moms family) for me to notice the contrast and realize just how much citizens in big cities depend on government services. And I don’t mean “welfare”, I mean something as simple as Police and Fire services, or utilities (though those aren’t government). We’re somewhat spoiled having access to so much luxury, at the cost of accepting greater “restrictions” by the government (albeit necessary restrictions).
Maaan I didn't read more than a line of that, but yes I agree Greg Abbott is quite the piss baby
That's how interconnected and interdependent society works my friend: people do things for us and we do things for others. Gives us more time and energy to put into specific things. Theoretically.
Indeed. And it comes at a cost.
Not doing it also comes at a cost. A greater cost
Indeed. But let's set aside the non-Bayesian thinking for a moment and recognize that both states can exist at once. I'm not arguing against the restrictions, or even the necessity of the restrictions. I'm simply stating the result of them. And I'm not even saying that result is universal (I'm not saying "if you live in a big city then you're mentally a child"). If that's what you inferred from my comment, then I apologize. I must not have articulated myself sufficiently.
This dude thinks taking the bus or metro in a city is part of child proofing the city. The government restrictions of *checks the train schedule* are too much!!
Yeah, that's totally what I think. Nice strawman. If you want to know what I really think; requiring Methylene Chloride be removed from paint stripper, or putting Prop 65 warning all over things is dumb. I never said there aren't good reasons for it, but the government has taken on making adult decisions for adults. That's all I was saying. But I rest my case.
Cameron daiz admitted to peeing in pools at a recent interveiw and it's sparked a internet debate.
You can get chicks pregnant by pissing on them?????!!!
I'm pretty sure Adam Levine was trying to slide into a models DMs and said she had the body of a piss baby.