-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News DeSantis moves to bring state safety oversight of the Walt Disney World Monorail including suspending the service for inspections
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I’m actually surprised the Disney buses aren’t already under some kind of state inspection / oversight.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Do they even have emissions testing or anything else they are subject to? Or are required to do that all themselves and report it? Wonder how it compares to city buses...
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
One doesn't need to be an expert to recognize problems.
The Boeing 737 Max has had its share of problems.
I'm not an aviation expert.
Pit Bulls are a dangerous breed.
I'm not an expert in cynology.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
There's like the same 3 people on this thread who don't understand any of the points the reasonable people on here are trying to make, but I guess I could explain it like a child if I wanted to, but I don't think I have the time or the willpower, not like anyone is gonna change your minds.
Brian
Well-Known Member
Corporations do not have the same right as individuals. Change my mind.
Also, that's "Whataboutism" which I'm told is very, very bad.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
It’s always frightening to see how very, very little the Constitution means to a lot of Americans. Many would burn it to ash in a second for a chance to harm their “enemies.”
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
very true!
Brian
Well-Known Member
You've personally advocated for censorship in the X advertising thread. I'm not quite sure you're the constitutional rights exemplar.
flynnibus
Premium Member
More like...
what's good for the goose is good for the gander
Your rationalization doesn't hold up to what you'd want either in terms of being singled out. So try to avoid preaching it's ok to do to others.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Please point out the section that protects citizens from censorship in a private business?
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
You’ve defended attempts to literally overthrow the Constitutional order. Your conviction that saying a private company has the right to determine what messages it allows is unconstitutional is a beautiful example of how little you care about or understand the Constitution.
Oh, and you’ve advocated ethnic cleansing.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
So it’s okay to rob your business if too much isn’t taken?
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Also, in no way is what you said, Flynn, “whataboutism.” Not even remotely.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
Sometimes for your sanity, it is better to just not engage and ignore.Honestly all I see in here are people who believe in Freedom of Speech and those who don't, it's as simple as that.
EDIT: please post all the laughing emojis if you don't agree with freedom of speech lol, just proving my point once again
Brad Bishop
Well-Known Member
Re: Twitter (and other social media)
The problem here is that the government (fed) has let them skate by without forcing them to define themselves. Are they a carrier or are they an editorial.
A carrier is responsible for the communications method, not it's content. It's why you could call up your other whatever-supremacist buddies and chat all day long. They can't stop you from doing that but, at the same time, they're not responsible for the content / can't be sued over it.
An editorial is more like a newspaper (What's a "newspaper"??) whereas they are not required to carry your message but are held responsible for the content that they print.
Meta/X/YouTube/etc like to play both sides of this by saying:
- "We're making things safe for you..." (editorial)
- "You can't sue us! It's not our content!!" (suddenly "just a carrier")
They also tend to do this along partisan lines. Say the "right thing" and you'll never be questioned. Don't go along with the narrative and your post is taken down/"fact checked"/demonitized/etc. You can, effectively: "Say whatever you like as long as it's in alignment with the current narrative/authority." - which is really dangerous, though they'll claim literally everyone else is the danger.
Ultimately it's a problem with the government not forcing them to define what they are to make it clear, legally, what they can and can't do. Editorial? Ok, I can only write what you believe in. Carrier? Ok, I can write whatever I like but I'm ultimately responsible for it and people can bring their own arguments and disagree with me as much as they'd like.
The problem here is that the government (fed) has let them skate by without forcing them to define themselves. Are they a carrier or are they an editorial.
A carrier is responsible for the communications method, not it's content. It's why you could call up your other whatever-supremacist buddies and chat all day long. They can't stop you from doing that but, at the same time, they're not responsible for the content / can't be sued over it.
An editorial is more like a newspaper (What's a "newspaper"??) whereas they are not required to carry your message but are held responsible for the content that they print.
Meta/X/YouTube/etc like to play both sides of this by saying:
- "We're making things safe for you..." (editorial)
- "You can't sue us! It's not our content!!" (suddenly "just a carrier")
They also tend to do this along partisan lines. Say the "right thing" and you'll never be questioned. Don't go along with the narrative and your post is taken down/"fact checked"/demonitized/etc. You can, effectively: "Say whatever you like as long as it's in alignment with the current narrative/authority." - which is really dangerous, though they'll claim literally everyone else is the danger.
Ultimately it's a problem with the government not forcing them to define what they are to make it clear, legally, what they can and can't do. Editorial? Ok, I can only write what you believe in. Carrier? Ok, I can write whatever I like but I'm ultimately responsible for it and people can bring their own arguments and disagree with me as much as they'd like.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They’re not carriers as the carriers are the ISPs. There’s no confusion. It’s like saying someone hosting a conference call is a carrier and therefore has to let anyone participate in it. Also those most up in arms about Twitter censorship got rid of net neutrality so being a carrier wouldn’t matter anyway.
The idea of imposing some sort of liability on real time is impractical nonsense. It’d require active moderation of everything. This forum wouldn’t be possible because there would have to be an army of people reading every single post to determine if it can be posted.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Today is also quite the day to be claiming X is committed to open speech.