If you read the article that was one of several things they threw out there to excuse their consistently delaying/not complying. The courts told them repeatedly that their opinions on the matter were wrong and they kept delaying over and over again.
I mean come on:
"Twitter contends that it 'substantially complied with the [w]arrant' because 'there was nothing [it] could have done to comply faster' after the court issued the February 7 order," the court document said.
The court rejected Twitter's "good faith" arguments, mainly because the company blew past the original deadline and repeatedly failed to raise concerns at earlier opportunities.
Twitter continued challenging the nondisclosure order and the sanctions, but the court rejected most of its arguments and ultimately affirmed the contempt sanctions, issuing its opinion on July 18.
Honestly, Admins on instances need to be more generous with their ban hammers. It would probably help a lot. People have internalized a flawed notion of “protecting free-speech“ that allows people to be incredibly disruptive to communities in a very outsized way.
I can’t speak for everyone else, but the only recommendations I want to see are ones directly relevant to the video I have pulled up in front of me. I can get why that is not exactly what everyone wants though.
I can see that you argue in good faith and I apologize for some reddit impulses that I haven’t unlearned yet.
You and me both man. Someone the other day said "that classic reddit performative snark" and fuck me if it didn't feel like I heard a gunshot. Looking through this thread I came pretty close to going full tilt that direction again. Still learning I suppose.
Personally I don’t see the equation of leftism with defending CP in OPs post though.
So I'm a little surprised to see this. The image explicitly says:
THE "LEFTIST"
No ethical consumption under capitalism. Legalize child porn NOW!" (bolding my own)
So the post to me is saying "leftists want to legalize child porn." With Vaush as a poster for all leftists. I do not see it as purely about Vaush anymore than i see the "Plants Rights Activist" commentary being about solely Joe Rogan (which funny enough is not even a stance I think he holds, but I dislike him and don't care to confirm lol).
Let me give another example: If I was making a meme and put "Conservatives [insert picture of George Bush above it]: Wants their steak bloody. Hates gay people." Would you say "ah this is just about George Bush" or would you see it as I see it, which is a statement about ALL conservatives with simply an image of one?
The images are just meant to accent the content, not be taken directly as the subject. Does that make sense?
hoodatninja @ hoodatninja @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 490Joined 2 yr. ago