To the Moderator This may get me Banned for suggesting it

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BarryS

Guest
@BarryS Disagreements are one thing but when people cannot constructively disagree or debate and result in name-calling, downgrading, and just unkind behavior in general, that's where it stops. You and others may be that way, but EBR is not. I have referenced the EBR Rules and Etiquette thread multiple times. That is what this board stands for and what information is not allowed. If some find it difficult to abide by the rules of the forum, their content will be edited, deleted, and/or eventually be banned. I am actually older than you likely believe, however, that's irrelevant. I was hired to do a job - moderate and keep the peace EBR is known for.
I know the rules : I'm not questioning the rules > So where exactly am I name calling or downgrading someone or being unkind . I've used terms like OH COME ON or You got to be joking to make it clear I think the comment is ridiculous . But I don't recall name calling or being mean . If I have been you need to point it out to me . In the open is fine with me
 

Angela M.

Administrator
Staff member
When a thread is closed it doesn't mean that it is due to the original poster doing anything wrong; it is the information and behavior of content contained within the thread which gets it closed. None of this is directed to you personally @BarryS , I am just providing a response to hopefully clear up any confusion.
 

ebikemom

Well-Known Member
My point is regardless of the threads . Whether they are off topic or E-bike related . I don't see anywhere that anyone including Myself has gotten Vulgar or threatening towards anyone else.
Believe me there are posts like that. Admins (and I’m a volunteer mod, BTW) generally are able to remove them early. Sharp eyed members report them. Sometimes a thread is closed because there have been repeated such posts, or posts with personal attacks. Closing a thread is a gentler way of handling this sort of thing than deleting a thread. If someone wants to continue the discussion they can start a new thread.
 

Alaskan

Well-Known Member
137037029_10158835308334800_1377009398648380015_n.jpg
 

cldlhd

Active Member
100% correct. People get the impressed amendment wrong so much it's amazing. The CEO of a company can say what they want, like that dimwit my pillow guy, and people have the right to be offended and call his retailers and say we're not going to do business with you unless you cut ties with him. People may or may not agree with that behavior but it is exactly the opposite of violating the first Amendment That behavior is an example of the first Amendment. Personally that only have the time to bother with that but there's nothing wrong with it. The first amendment is strictly about the government silencing speech and even then the government has a right to do so in certain cases like the classic yelling fire in the movie theater. However your cartoon was much more of an entertaining way of explaining it so thanks
 

Handlebars

Well-Known Member
Region
Canada
What you offer is a strawman. That is, it argues against the weakest or even false, not against any cogent argument offered.
What the cogent argument is, is that by editing out or banning what is not illegal content, the media are not merely platforms that are provided legal protection wrt content hosted.
That way Twitter for example, could be sued and or criminally charged for violations.
 

Handlebars

Well-Known Member
Region
Canada
Exactly but they edit out content all the time Don't they? as you said social media companies do have protection so nobody knows what your point is. If you don't like it sue them or run for office and change the law other than that I would have recommend just stop whining..
FOX is not granted protection. They can be sued or criminally charged for any content they publish.
Social media platforms that do not behave as mere platforms do not fit under the category of those being protected, as they become a publisher.
That is the real argument...sure you can find weak arguments to present as the argument to defeat, as Alaskan did. That shows your own weakness, in that you do not attack the strongest arguments.
No change of law is needed.
 

cldlhd

Active Member
@cldlhd -- I think you are arguing in good faith, but I worry that the people you are arguing with are not. So I doubt your conversation is going to be constructive for anyone.
I agree, I was sort of just entertaining myself a bit and hopefully a couple of others. I really don't think this site should be about politics but people can talk about what they want. Maybe after this week I'll let them irritate me less. Besides I got some stuff I got to go do so have a good day, cheers
 

cldlhd

Active Member
No, I do not think that.
I'll do this very s l o w l y for you now.

FOX and CNN are NOT platforms, they are publishers.
I understand the difference So what is your point about social media companies They are not subject to the same laws as publishers and that they should be? Yes we are all familiar with that argument
 
Last edited:

cldlhd

Active Member
No, I do not think that.
I'll do this very s l o w l y for you now.

FOX and CNN are NOT platforms, they are publishers.
Look although obviously social media platforms are making editorial decisions by banning certain things They are not going to be held live on the same way as a news company who produces and editorializes basically all of their material. There is so much content from so many people on Facebook every day that could be considered slander it'll never work the same way as it would with someone like the New York times. If I was a whining type I would argue that news organizations that I don't agree with should be sued more often for lying or for slander but I'm not. Any intelligent adult realizes that it is a murky situation when social media platforms do engage in editorialization, but it is clearly not the same as a newspaper.
 
B

BarryS

Guest
I understand what you're saying I just don't care, you guys are trying to point out that social media companies are the same as a news channel and they're there for liable because they are banning certain things I think that is an argument to be made I just think it is not true. It's also fun seeing you get all upset because at the end of the day you're really upset because your orange god is leaving exit right.
Social media is a content provider . they are protected from being suexd by someone for content on their site taht may cause trouble , be hateful , or just be lies . When they start deciding what can be considered lies or hate speech they just lost their protection. because now they are editing and publishing based on their viewpoint . like Cnn and fox do
 

cldlhd

Active Member
Social media is a content provider . they are protected from being suexd by someone for content on their site taht may cause trouble , be hateful , or just be lies . When they start deciding what can be considered lies or hate speech they just lost their protection. because now they are editing and publishing based on their viewpoint . like Cnn and fox do
I understand the argument I just think it'll be a loser in court. Banning violent speech isn't the same as being movies provider. I get the argument though.
 

troehrkasse

EBR Webmaster
Staff member
Region
USA
City
Fort Collins
This isn't a real forum. It's astroturfing. It is bought and paid for by the industry, same as certain youtube channels that are often proffered as being at the cutting edge of emtb, all they are at the cutting edge of is marketing. Notice the admins dont look like they have ever ridden a bike or written any code but they do look like administrators or accountants at multinationals. Also note the gatekeepers; They are the ones that keep people focused on brands and steer folks away from 'DIY' to the brands that they are paid to promote.
How do you tell from the "look" of someone if they have ever ridden a bike, or written code?

Regarding your "astroturfing" comment... Not sure where you're coming from with that. EBR goes to great lengths to disclose our advertisers, to the extent that every single review clearly states who paid for it or if it was provided free of charge. Running our platform requires a money, and we do our best to be clear about where it comes from. We also go to great lengths to allow people to share their negative experiences with all electric bike brands; you'd be amazed at how many takedown requests we get from all sorts of companies.

If you think we aren't a real forum, no one's forcing you to stick around :) you're certainly free to share your opinions, but bashing on the forum and the mods here isn't appreciated and really makes me wonder why you are here in the first place. If you want to continue discussing it you're welcome to message me privately.

If we aren't supposed to discuss topics un related to Bikes that may be political or religious then that should be implemented and adhered to the Letter.
I agree, and that's just what we're working on doing :) we've been a lot more lenient in the past, but we've started to be more strict regarding political and religious discussion.

I'm having trouble understanding why you keep closing threads . I see strong disagreements . But don't see lives threatened or anything remotely close
We're closing threads because as soon as politics or religion come up in a thread, it quickly devolves to pointless arguing, name-calling, insults, and our moderators having to do a ton of extra work to respond to reports, issue warnings, and clean up the thread. It's a waste of our time and there are plenty of other places on the internet where you can have flame wars about any topic you desire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.