snowychap

32 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Even if we say it reaches this hypothetical threshold, is it actually a marketplace of discussion? Can we assign a purpose to something that isn't the one intended by the owner/creator?

Do they relinquish ownership to the public now that it's been reached? This sounds like an argument for nationalizing social media and making it an actual public marketplace of discussion instead of a heavily regulated private one that happens to have a very large userbase.

Anyway, what's the endgame here? Do you not agree with moderation in general? Should everybody have a platform on Twitter to say whatever they want with no repercussions? I'm genuinely failing to see the issue here, so it'd be appreciated if you could spell it out to me.

You're mixing a whole lot of stuff up from what I can see.

Purpose v magnitude and the consequences of thresholds reached.

I've suggested there's a difference between small forums such as VT and large platforms such as twitter.

Other than the obvious, I think there's a fundamental difference between forums that are overblown sites of a small community (apologies to all on VT) and sites that host a great deal of the virtual world.

It's not about agreeing with or disagreeing with moderation. It's about understanding the platform upon which someone is standing/speaking/discussing and its position in the world. And its about understanding the repercussions of what they say.

No one should think that what they say (on whatever platform - and the size/worth/&c. has a bearing) is said without repercussions.

Edit: I'm very, very drunk.

24 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Again, that is very arbitrary. We can't decide if a site is a marketplace of public discussion because an arbitrary large number of people now use it.

Well, actually we can, can't we?

The number of people using a marketplace has a direct bearing on whether it's actually a marketplace of discussion or simply a venue for a chinwag.

Surely, though one obviously can't 'name a number', there is a reasonable point at which a discussion by the public becomes a public discussion.

Edit: It's the old how many grains of sand make a heap thing, no?

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It kinda is though, it’s social media.

D'uh.

6 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

What's the difference apart from 1 having a much larger userbase? Or more pointedly, what's the difference that applies here?

Whilst VT is viewable by the public, it isn't a forum that carries weight in the forum/marketplace of public discussion. Other messageboards may carry some weight but they probably carry less than  twitter.

The 'much larger userbase' thing is obviously pertinent.

VT isn't twitter.

10 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Also what difference does it make if it's a "universal forum"?

A huge difference. VT isn't twitter.

7 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

What is the morality angle? I'm genuinely failing to see it.

Whether their enforcement of their TOS is consistent is another issue. But it is very clear in black and white that incitement is against the TOS 

Also what difference does it make if it's a "universal forum"? That seems a very arbitrary distinction. It's still a private entity, even if it is publicly facing. It has nothing to do with free speech in the constitutional sense. Its punishments also are restricted to that private sphere. If he logs out of Twitter, he'll find be can still express his views on other platforms, or even hold a press conference that will be broadcasted to millions.

What even is the argument here, allow everything to be posted with no repercussions? I don't see any tears shed for the quashing of ISIS operatives on Twitter. What of their free speech? Why are they being censored etc. The outrage here seems very selective.

If I get banned from Twitter, shit, I just got banned from Twitter. I don't have a right to use that platform, and if they don't want me there then that's their prerogative. I'm not even paying for the privilege. Even if their reasoning is BS. Now there could be an argument for nationalizing these platforms and making them public entities, in which all these arguments about free speech and censorship would apply I guess. Right now it's just the free market, free market'ing.

Wow. Just wow.

3 hours ago, Keyblade said:

There's no morality in question here. It's a website enforcing its TOS which include, rather reasonably I'd personally say, not inciting violence on its platform. A violation of which typically results in a ban. What is the moral objection here? I'm failing to see one. Beyond that, was his ban unfair based on the TOS that he agreed to when signing up for that platform?

For example would you be censored if @limpid hit you with a hot ban for calling me a word removed? Or would you just be breaking the rules of the site and are being punished for doing so? What's the problem here?

There is a morality angle.  One does have to judge it in terms of what it means beyond Donald J Trump whether or not you, I or anyone else likes that.

It's not just a website enforcing TOS, is it? Their enforcement is rather haphazard, at best, whch would suggest that this particular enforcement is specific.

VT can't be compared to twitter. It isn't a universal forum, for all limpid et al. may wish.

The point is not to support anything from Trump but rather to question the platforms.

57 minutes ago, Awol said:

Just following ‘legal orders’. You missed out the key word for some reason?

Because it's not key, it's otiose.

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Jeez are you really inviting us to list all the horses in this race?

 

You can't call her a horse. At most, she's a pony.

1 hour ago, Awol said:

The military follow legal orders

'Just following orders'.

5 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

What I've done there is misinterpret your post, then deliver a really shit attempt at a joke. Ignore me  

Sorry from me, too, then.

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

Crikey, it's even more effective than we thought, they were right not to bother with the second dose

You **** what?

11 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Possibly. It looks like deaths have already started going down even though today's is high due to reporting lagging.

Possibly?

There's a worrying angle in that Chartwells appear to be part of the Rashford child food poverty taskforce.

That's not to suggest there's an issue with Rashford's campaign - just to highlight that there may be a bit of a bigger problem than just the usual Tory corruption.

Grauniad:

Quote

Last month Chartwells, which is part of the giant Compass UK group, tweeted: “We are proud to be the first school caterer to join Child Food Poverty Taskforce formed by @MarcusRashford”. Its managing director, Charlie Brown, added: “Marcus Rashford’s campaign shines a much-needed spotlight on the issue of child food poverty.”

43 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Some modelling has been done on if the gov does do 2m vaccines a week (which is looking very likely). It's looking like after the next couple of weeks are over, deaths will start dropping off sharply.

Given that the current daily deaths figure was 1243, the forecast according to that graph would suggest that deaths will start to drop off more sharply from now than they will from two weeks hence.

2 hours ago, av1 said:

Just wonder what everyone's thoughts are on my situation atm. I'm buying my first home atm and I'm getting the keys next Friday. After having some absolutely ridiculous house moving quotes I today reserved a van with a view to asking a couple of mates/family members to help me. 

I've just been chatting to my mom and she mentioned the restrictions, and the fact that I'm probably not allowed to have a couple of mates over.

House removal companies are allowed to work, so what about people wanting to do it themselves? 

Pay them.

28 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Quite a few apparently.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries

 

I think most of those (if not all) are roll-overs of the current EU agreements to which the UK was party (with one or two slight adjustments, e.g. with Japan).

Edit:

11 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Anxiety, severe asthma, anything else?

There are a number of specific reasons on the government's non-exhaustive list:

Quote

In settings where face coverings are required in England there are some circumstances where people may not be able to wear a face covering.

Please be mindful and respectful of such circumstances. Some people are less able to wear face coverings, and the reasons for this may not be visible to others.

This includes (but is not limited to):

• children under the age of 11 (Public Health England does not recommend face coverings for children under the age of 3 for health and safety reasons)
• people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability
• where putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress
• if you are speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expressions to communicate
• to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others ‒ including if it would negatively impact on your ability to exercise or participate in a strenuous activity
• police officers and other emergency workers, given that this may interfere with their ability to serve the public

Obviously some of those probably don't apply to shoppers but they are wide-ranging and certainly go beyond just anxiety and severe asthma.

11 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Should they be out as highly vulnerable people?

Shielding is a choice based on advice given and not a requirement.

11 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I know it's not as simple as 'let them get a home delivery'

'let them get a home delivery'? I don't think anyone is barred from getting a home delivery (for those things which are able to be delivered to home - some things, such as electric and gas prepayment top-ups, for example*) - practical issues may make them difficult or nigh on impossible.

What you appear to be saying is not 'let them get a home delivery' but that they should be compelled to get a home delivery if they do not need to wear a face covering as per the legislation.

*I think there is an option for some to top up online but it's not a widely-offered or used option.

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I'm struggling to think of anyone who is exempt from wearing a mask who should be out shopping rather than having home delivery.

You appear to be drawing a connection between those with no need to wear a face covering and people who may have been advised to be shielding that isn't there.

This also appears to ignore the issues with getting home deliveries, having to go to a shop to get something urgently, &c.

1 minute ago, wazzap24 said:

Might not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but this will hurt both his pride and his finances

He will do his absolute nut.

4 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Like most things, it made perfect sense inside my head and absolutely none outside of it

To be fair it did make sense - though it went way over my head initially.