here is one of the many commandments jesus instructed his twelve apostles to keep, follow, and obey!.
here is anthony morris ( supposedly selected by jehovah to keep, follow and obey the sayings of jesus ) name-calling and condemning enemies!
the pharisees used to label people as well.
He must really be pissed he got caught with his hand in the McAllen's at bottlegate.
That's sounds like a joke, but y'know, something in that screed sounds, well, personal.
Like he's convinced it was a "despicable apostate" who filmed him buying $800 of top-top shelf booze, and he now fantasizes about being the guy who, when he's riding in the heavenly cavalry, gets to learn who exactly it was and gets to kill "despicable him" personally.
i have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
Is it "censoring conservatives", or is it following their own guidelines for not allowing certain posts?
I.e. are they doing it because of the political orientation of the poster, or because of the content of the posts?
Twitter & Facebook have determined that the whole NYP story is demonstrably false. They have determined that allowing posts that point to a misleading story violates their guidelines. I understand other people disagree with that assessment, but "other people" don't run Twitter or FB.
My right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins. Conservatives can say whatever the hell they want on Twitter or elsewhere, but if they propagate stories that violate the posting guidelines, they have to accept the consequences or leave.
If you disagree with their guidelines, or disagree that your posts violate the guidelines, write them a letter.
How many people has Simon banned from this site over the years, conservative and liberal? I'd bet virtually all of them would say they'd been "censored". Was that really the case though?
i have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
If you allow one party to say whatever they want but don’t apply the same standard to the other it’s wrong.
Are they really applying the standards differently for different "sides"? Minimus thinks so, and says it's "wrong", but other folks disagree.
These companies need to be held responsible.
By whom? By what authority?
If you don't like what the New York times prints, buy the New York Post. If you don't like Stephen King's novels, don't read them. If you don't like Twitter's policies, don't support them.
Simon has no obligation to post pro-JW screeds on this site in the interest of "fairness". It's his site. He can do what he wants.
Twitter is a private company with certain policies and standards. They choose to allow or prohibit certain users and content. What law obligates them to do so according to something other than their own determination?
i have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
If they don’t like what you post they can just ban you.
Just imagine if Simon did that!
i have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
As I understand it, CDA 230 is there to protect companies from liability for their decisions to leave up or take down content posted on their sites. I.e., as a private company they have the right to allow or disallow what other people post there, and no one has can sue them for either leaving up, or taking down, content. Obviously, there are exceptions such as child porn, sex trafficking, etc.
I also understand there are differing opinions about the meaning and extent of CDA 230.
I agree, the wording from 1996 is probably trying to do too much lifting in 2020. It would be good for congress, if/when it gets past its hyper-partisan divide, to consider amending it.
i have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
tech companies should be regulated.
That's a surprising reaction. Isn't the conservative position that there is already too much government oversight of private enterprise? That the market will reward or punish the behavior of private corporations and government should just leave them be, and stick to national defense and maintaining civil order?
Maybe I misunderstand, I slept through a lot of classes.
i have a very good friend who has been banned from facebook simply because he makes remarks positive about president trump and negative toward the democratic party.
he has tried to get back on facebook and it appears there is no way for him to return.
people are being removed from social media platforms simply because they have a different political view.
I guess it depends on how "positive" and "negative" the comments were, to determine how "terrible" it is.
If he were removed for saying "I think the Democratic platform regarding expanding access to Medicaid is ill-considered for the following reasons...." then yes, that's terrible.
If he were removed for saying "Every person who votes Democrat is a scum-sucking evil pig who wants to abort babies to sacrifice to Satan", well, I can kinda see why he'd be banned.
Can you give a quote or two of his "positive" and "negative" comments?
so here i am 44 yr old divorced and free to remarry jw sister....first time single since i was 19. but guess what no single brothers in my area.
i’ve tried those stupid jw dating sites and still no luck.
oh yes there are tons of single brothers, but guess what...they all expect a hot barbie to come running into their life.
Will you be disfellowshipped if you date an unbeliever?
Strictly for dating an unbeliever? No.
But if you persist, you will be ostracized by virtually everyone in the congregation. No one will ever invite you to their home (obviously, referring to a non-COVID world). No one will invite you out to eat with them, or invite you to any social event. Evan at the Kingdom Hall, very few if any will come up to talk to you.
Nearly all contact with you will be limited to "encouraging" you (i.e., forcefully trying to persuade you how hopelessly misguided you are, and if you were "wise" and "want to please Jehovah" you'd drop your boyfriend like a bag of hot lava). There will be virtually no other topic of conversation between any other JW and you, aside from superficial niceties.
In short, your life as a JW will become intolerable. You will be forever an "outsider". You need to decide which you want more - to be a JW or to have a boyfriend / husband.
The fact that you are posting on this site indicates your heart may not be fully inclined toward a JW lifestyle. If that is the case, now (before baptism) is the time to cut and run.
scanning thru the usual jw sites, i saw a link to this site:.
https://www.talk2practice.com/.
looks like a standard language-tutoring site, right?.
It just seems so sketchy, from beginning to end. Weird photos, JW dog whistles ("daily text", "best life ever"), obviously made-up glowing testimonials.
scanning thru the usual jw sites, i saw a link to this site:.
https://www.talk2practice.com/.
looks like a standard language-tutoring site, right?.
Here's one thing that's odd:
Click on the "Teachers" tab and select any language.
All the photos of the teachers are of attractive people aged about 25-40, with the backgrounds all very similar - spacious, modern, bright, designer furniture, large windows....basically very large American-style houses that virtually no young JW window-washer / janitor / house cleaner could come close to affording.
I guess it's conceivable that a bunch of young, wealthy, white American JWs all decided to become language tutors on a lark, but....
