"Piss Off' is now enough

Proving our point well done.  Tough standard moving forward.

Well do you consider that term to be constructive conversation? If you cuss someone out and are asked to not do that and you do it again is there going to be a good result that follows?

You prove your own point, if you cannot have disagreements and be respectful I would suggest not replying versus insults and attacks.

 How about the caulde comment in my Biden thread? Would you consider that "constructive"?

@wallstreetcappers

Piss off.

You even stalk me into the box.  You're unable to separate your official duties with you personal political positions that also crumble under their own weight.

It's both transparent and sad.

@THEMUGG

Unable to show one lib sent to the box post inauguration.

It’s ok buddy give me a hug

Don't ya know, they are all victims now. 

What a place.

Yes he/she/them would. 

@THEMUGG

To not come in, argue, and get the last word is secretly killing buddy, there's solace in that.

Interesting to me the tone and script has changed since the last overstep that got aired in the help forum.

For the love God man - please just box me - so we can finally satisfy the ladies in here 

It really has nothing to do with you, and your involvement is only to illustrate a point. Even if you were boxed, it would be meaningless. You would simply be a sacrificial lamb.

It really has nothing to do with you, and your involvement is only to illustrate a point. Even if you were boxed, it would be meaningless. You would simply be a sacrificial lamb.

Ok - but what are you guys end goal ? You are discussing with the guy you have a problem with about you not liking the way he does his “job” ? Has that ever worked in the past you have done that (just in life in general)

"You are discussing with the guy you have a problem with"

 Misread of the situation. 

No one has a problem with the guy but rather his inability to separate personal politics that run counter-current to his own from his official duties representing covers.

His partisan bias disproportionately manifests towards those he views (labels) a certain way deteriorating their experience on covers.

What your referring to would be his poor attempts to justify his actions with means other than stated guidelines while dismissing (routinely) behavior warranting time served.  Means that when called out, and proven false, perpetuate his bias as "history" or "angst"

The end game, not much.  Eventually people will tire, move on, and they'll win at the detriment of covers usership.  They have a forum and platform to self counsel eachother through their TDS and continued failed policies (with lightsbulbs and thumbs up) and thought while watching their party continually get wholly rejected by the American people.

And then eventually piss off for good, cause I know and age discrepancy when I see one.

Also very important to note that most on a given "side" are perfectly fine ignoring him (and his 4,000 characters) until he inserts himself into conversations for reasons other than advancement and subsequently people end up with accommodations such as mine.

There is no end goal for me. I'll just always call a spade a spade. I'm gonna calling out hypocrisy, gas lighting, and borderline harassment. Just holding a mirror up. Nothing will come of it, and at the end of the day, that's fine. This is still just a chat forum on a gambling website. None of this is consequential.

"None of this is consequential."

Football can't get here fast enough.  

Does one individual speak for a platform? 

It appears an avenue to find out exists respective to failing to moderate in "good faith" vs. the "platforms" belief that piss off is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable".  Good luck given everything else that is contained on the platform.

While 230 is broad and protective, it is not impermeable and layering through Ireland and Canada doesn't negate responsibilities that come with servicing the US. Or, at least we'll find out.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751#:~:text=(1) Treatment of Publisher or,in %5Bsubparagraph (A)%5D.

Good faith content moderation is a crucial aspect of Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act. This provision shields interactive computer service providers (like social media platforms, forums, and websites with comment sections) and users from liability for their voluntary actions to restrict access to material they consider to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". The key phrase here is "good faith". 

What does "good faith" mean in this context?

Voluntary Action: Platforms are not forced to moderate content; it's a voluntary choice they make to foster a safer or more desirable environment.

Belief of Objectionability: To qualify for immunity, the platform must genuinely believe the content falls within the categories listed (obscene, harassing, etc.) or is "otherwise objectionable," even if it is technically legal under the First Amendment.

Not Pretextual or Anticompetitive: Courts have ruled that a platform does not act in "good faith" if its content restriction is motivated by anticompetitive reasons or if the stated reason for removal is a mere pretext. For example, a platform removing a competitor's website for "webspam" but being secretly motivated by the competitor's success could be considered acting in bad faith.

Terms of Service: While not explicitly required, aligning content moderation practices with clearly defined terms of service is often considered good practice. Some proposals suggest explicitly defining "good faith" to include adherence to clear terms of service and providing reasonable explanations for removals.

Not a Guarantee of Perfection: The "good faith" requirement doesn't demand infallible content moderation. Platforms can still make mistakes or have policies that some users disagree with. The focus is on the intent behind the action. 

Why is "good faith" important for Section 230?

Incentivizes Moderation: The "good faith" provision is seen as a "carrot," encouraging platforms to moderate content without fear of facing lawsuits for every decision they make.

Balance of Interests: It seeks to balance the desire for a free and open internet with the need to address harmful and objectionable content.

Protecting Users and Platforms: It protects users from the negative impact of harmful content and shields platforms from potentially crippling liability for user-generated content. 

The concept of "good faith" in the context of Section 230's content moderation provisions continues to be debated and interpreted by courts, particularly as technology and online platforms evolve. 

Notwithstanding the bad faith moderation there are violations of the terms of service as it relates to "legal@cs-medialtd.com" ...at least my believe based on documents.

So, post vacation project upcoming.

"Platforms can still make mistakes or have policies that some users disagree with. The focus is on the intent behind the action."

Buddy can repeat the same rehearsed response, but the intent is readily transparent.

 Why you still in here?

@THEMUGG

Incredibly telling.

Especially since the way he talks to you and Raiders is no less incendiary than "piss off".

@benhogan76

 Your mother 

Definitely worse than "piss off" recently with no consequences.  Yet the ban remains.