Comments by "Jim" (@jimohara) on "Trump's New "Free Speech" Platform Will Ban You for Criticizing It" video.

These conditions don’t actually say that. It’s more like ‘We can have a conversation as long as you don’t try to slit my throat’
2
@Agarwaen Since when was ‘disparage’ a synonym for ‘contradict’?
2
It sounds more like a space where Trumpists and anti-Trumpists will be able to engage in all honestly
2
@newstroll982 Also, if you’re asking about David, David is one of the best people to watch on YouTube. I’ve learned a lot from watching him and will continue to do so. It’s genuinely a pleasure to watch a master manipulator, a master of deception, at his work. It’s like watching a magician. He is good at what he does. And also he’s not always wrong. I think it is commendable the way he can feign adopting the right principles and then play on that for all he’s worth. Literally for all he’s worth. I can’t not admire that ability to bullshit and then tell the truth at the same time. Or tell the truth and then bullshit so successfully. There’s no way I’m going to miss how he copes as the Biden administration circles down the toilet. He’s already prepped for the midterms next year but should Trump run again in 2024 and win I can hardly imagine what a payoff that would be to have followed David all the way through. And then then there’d be another four years of Trump after that. 😃 Can you imagine? hahaha. So I guess I’m committed to David for the long term. Me sticking to this channel is probably going to last longer than most marriages God willing. At the end of the day, David’s not a bad aul skin but if Republicans were to win again in 2028 , that’ll add up to over a decade of watching David squirm. 🙏
2
@chimalez2924 Almost like right wingers aren’t inclined to be hackers and wreckers isn’t it?
2
@Agarwaen Did you neglect to look back and see that was exactly what the OP was trying to make out?
1
@markgreen4612 I didn’t see that in the ToS. I saw it more as a clause to allow the site to prevent users from joining to actively destroy the site. A bit like saying anyone is welcome to come aboard the ship as long as their express purpose for doing so is to sink the ship. Bus drivers should let everyone get on the bus as long they don’t intend to blow up the bus. Who’s going to build a plane only to allow a bunch of passengers on board who’s sole motivation for taking a flight is to crash the plane and prevent it from reaching its intended destination? Surely that can’t be that difficult to understand? Almost anyone can stay in my house if they’re stuck but I’d have to draw the line with people that wanted to burn my house down or use it as a location to abuse others or farmyard animals. That really should go without saying but at the same time might need to be said. ‘Should’ doesn’t really amount to much in this world, so best to err on the side of caution. Also, just to add, I can in no way imagine how this social media venture will prove to l be a success. The possibility that this will be what I would call a success just escapes me at this present time.
1
@KyleSmith-qt9sg No. Not at all. David might have tried to pretend different and miss frame the ToS but obviously no one is going to create a social media platform for people that allows others a windows to destroy the platform that was sought to be provided. What I said was exactly right. Trump knows that if launches this new social media platform it will be filled with bad actors whose only purpose being there will be to destroy the use of the platform for others and he has to protect against that. Funny how David made no mention of that and instead sat with his shit eating grin and then pretended like he had a point to make. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think this will be a successful endeavor for Trump but to suggest that creating a free space on the internet should allow that free space to be attacked unconditionally in any way and potentially rendered defunct by doing so a ridiculous standard to hold it too.
1
@maryanntampourlos9908 What was that lol about?
1
@KyleSmith-qt9sg No. The way I see it is that I’m challenging you on that assertion and either you don’t have the time or lack the ability to refute me . I’m pretty drunk but I think I did write a bit too much for you to be bothered to go through so I’ll grant you that. Whatever it was. I’ll still stand by my original assertion though. Whatever that was. I still have the notion that I was in the right and now I’m thinking I’ve overwhelmed your position. That’s not necessarily so though because I’ve no recollection of what I’m just after writing to you . Despite that I’m going to still stand my ground here. It must have been something about Trump’s new social media platform having necessarily a built in failsafe to prevent it’s own immediate destruction and your failure to appreciate how obviously necessary that would be and perhaps trying to pretend that it was for some other reason. I’m not too sure though because I kinda end up interacting with a lot of people at once on different threads with my contrary views and all. Regardless, the long and the short of it is that I’m calling BS on Pakman and can just leave you out of it. I can at least remember that this was not honest reporting, this was dishonest framing. You’re not the bad guy. David is quite obviously the bad guy in my mind
1
@sharonazevedo344 And you are ok with existing platforms removing him for potentially telling the truth? Or was it for telling lies that these platforms of billionaires removed him?
1
@johntodd8854 Except the ToS doesn’t actually state that. If you act out of order and bring this endeavor into disrepute you’re equally liable to be told where to go even if you’re supporting Trump. Who would go to the trouble of building a media platform only to allow people on that platform whose sole purpose for being there was to destroy the platform? Do you not have the wit to ask that question? David could have easily pointed that out. It’s like owning a pub, you have to reserve the right to refuse admission because there’s bad sorts that will spoil it for everyone else. That’s reality. Instead David made this into a hypocrisy story. I’m sorry but David’s water is weak here. He’d have done better to have made this point incidentally in a different segment rather than trying to construe a whole segment out of it entirely. This is just lazy from him. He must think his audience are a bunch of dummies. And to be honest I don’t think he’s far wrong in just assuming that
1
@newstroll982 No, I didn’t hear the part where it said you can’t say anything negative about Trump. I seem to remember there was a part where it said the platform cannot be used to disparage the former President but that is not the same as no one can say anything negative about him. Engagement can still be welcome but that is not the same as tolerating malicious, bad faith attacks that are only conducted for the express purpose of shutting down engagement. I’m sorry for you but I think you yourself must realize that it’s well known how leftoids operate.
1
@leonieromanes7265 I’m not entitled to vote for him anyway. I think his statement was more along the lines of restore integrity to the electoral process or else you and the will of the American people won’t matter.
1
@papercup2517 Oh! So ‘sound like they clearly mean to include critical comment’. Not necessarily then? And in case it passed you by ‘otherwise harm’ might just encompass the propagation of false information too. Are you advocating for no protection against malicious lies?
1
Why ‘should’ people do that? Explain your reasoning
1
@thorr18BEM I can’t see this being a great success either
1