Campfire cuddles is awesome too. That was one of the first ones I got from her but in the recent order we got last week I asked her to do a peanut butter s’mores one (which you see now with the Reese cup on top).
- j.boyd919

Tell me this isn't one of the sexiest looking sandwiches...

Tell me this isn't one of the sexiest looking sandwiches...



- Rinosaur

Oh yeah that looks awesome. I wish NYC would open back up. I want to go back there.

Tell me this isn't one of the sexiest looking sandwiches...



- Rinosaur

https://www.instagram.com...Q0o/?igshid=17xmff83wlp1t

We went to this cheese melt place on st Pete beach. It was (frank)ing good too.

Do you consider what Twitter did election interference?
- j.boyd919

Not at all. I don't see how twitter's influence over the election through the deletion of posts is any different, legally, from the way Fox and MSNBC execute their bias through the dissemination of partisan drivel. Media companies have the right to say or not say what they want even if its brazenly partisan or outright disingenuous. Sometimes they can be sued if their misinformation leads to public safety hazards, but in general there are no consequences for this kind of behavior. And as we all know, this kind of partisan propaganda has a not insignificant affect on the public opinion of the electorate, and at a certain point, we just have admit that the electorate is (frank)ing stupid and can be lead to believe whatever anyone wants them to believe. There is no policy in the world that can fix the problem that the majority of misinformed voters don't care to become informed voters. The entire reason for existence for these 24 hour news stations is influencing elections and making money, and they're very good at it.

The same holds for Twitter. By deleting posts they are selecting the message that reaches their user base with a targeted agenda, just like any other media company. Why then make the distinction that twitter is unlawfully influencing elections? Because there's more Twitter users than there are Fox News or MSNBC viewers?

Again, this complaint seems to go back to people not liking the product Twitter is putting out and not liking that it's so big rather than any actual legal issue. It's sour grapes, and if the table were flipped and Dorsey had a great track record of purging the Russian bots spewing Bernie Bro BS instead of the Russian MAGA bots, the Republicans would love twitter and the Democrats would be crying about it. The process never matters in these narratives. It's always "I don't like the outcome, so let's see what mental gymnastics I can pull to make this out to be a constitutional scandal".

Not at all. I don't see how twitter's influence over the election through the deletion of posts is any different, legally, from the way Fox and MSNBC execute their bias through the dissemination of partisan drivel. Media companies have the right to say or not say what they want even if its brazenly partisan or outright disingenuous. Sometimes they can be sued if their misinformation leads to public safety hazards, but in general there are no consequences for this kind of behavior. And as we all know, this kind of partisan propaganda has a not insignificant affect on the public opinion of the electorate, and at a certain point, we just have admit that the electorate is (frank)ing stupid and can be lead to believe whatever anyone wants them to believe. There is no policy in the world that can fix the problem that the majority of misinformed voters don't care to become informed voters. The entire reason for existence for these 24 hour news stations is influencing elections and making money, and they're very good at it.

The same holds for Twitter. By deleting posts they are selecting the message that reaches their user base with a targeted agenda, just like any other media company. Why then make the distinction that twitter is unlawfully influencing elections? Because there's more Twitter users than there are Fox News or MSNBC viewers?

Again, this complaint seems to go back to people not liking the product Twitter is putting out and not liking that it's so big rather than any actual legal issue. It's sour grapes, and if the table were flipped and Dorsey had a great track record of purging the Russian bots spewing Bernie Bro BS instead of the Russian MAGA bots, the Republicans would love twitter and the Democrats would be crying about it. The process never matters in these narratives. It's always "I don't like the outcome, so let's see what mental gymnastics I can pull to make this out to be a constitutional scandal".
- Victoro311

I would have to disagree there. Given his testimony at the senate yesterday when he said that the reason they removed it was due to their “hacked materials” policy is bullpoop because they ran the steel
Dossier and the trump tax returns. Also their moderation is inconsistent, they don’t fact check Holocaust deniers but they do president trumps Covid info?

From what I’ve gathered on section 230 is what the others are saying. The biggest thing that needs to be amended on that is the “other objectionable content” (or whatever that last line after porn and violence is, can’t remember) or whatever it is. That’s really the only change that it needs to hold these public forums accountable. Comparing them to the bakery is a false equivalency, it holds water until section 230 is involved.

But like TheGame316 said, Twitter right now is having cake and eating it too and that’s the problem.

I would have to disagree there. Given his testimony at the senate yesterday when he said that the reason they removed it was due to their “hacked materials” policy is bullpoop because they ran the steel
Dossier and the trump tax returns. Also their moderation is inconsistent, they don’t fact check Holocaust deniers but they do president trumps Covid info?

From what I’ve gathered on section 230 is what the others are saying. The biggest thing that needs to be amended on that is the “other objectionable content” (or whatever that last line after porn and violence is, can’t remember) or whatever it is. That’s really the only change that it needs to hold these public forums accountable. Comparing them to the bakery is a false equivalency, it holds water until section 230 is involved.

But like TheGame316 said, Twitter right now is having cake and eating it too and that’s the problem.
- j.boyd919

Dawg, 24 hour news giants have been doing this for years...

Dawg, 24 hour news giants have been doing this for years...
- Victoro311

Twitter is not a news giant or a news company.

They claim they are a social platform or public forum.

That’s why they have the immunity mentioned in 230.

Section 230 was not written for publishers masquerading as platforms.

Oh yeah that looks awesome. I wish NYC would open back up. I want to go back there.
- j.boyd919

It is open.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGqKEXRsQ0o/?igshid=17xmff83wlp1t

We went to this cheese melt place on st Pete beach. It was (frank)ing good too.
- j.boyd919

Oh man. That looks awesome. You have check out some others from Federoffs. They these chicken sandwiches that look unreal.

It is open.
- Rinosaur

Nah. I’m Jewish. They’ll lock me up, unless I identify as Antifa and want to loot.

Nah. I’m Jewish. They’ll lock me up, unless I identify as Antifa and want to loot.
- j.boyd919

LOL What? Are you unfamiliar with the large Jewish population here in the NY/NJ area?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CE9dPVYFK6a/

LOL What? Are you unfamiliar with the large Jewish population here in the NY/NJ area?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CE9dPVYFK6a/
- Rinosaur

Nah I was making an off color joke about the cops (frank)ing with Jew gatherings in the last few weeks lol I’m not actually Jewish. I might identify as one if it’ll get me lower interest rates.

Twitter is not a news giant or a news company.

They claim they are a social platform or public forum.

That’s why they have the immunity mentioned in 230.

Section 230 was not written for publishers masquerading as platforms.
- j.boyd919

As it stands now 230 is a one way street where platforms are protected from liability if their publishers say bad things and the platforms are given the right to moderate content "in good faith". There really isn't anything in 230 that penalizes publishers for doing a bad job of this and being heavy handed on one side of the aisle and lenient with the other because motives are incredibly difficult to prove. I think we both agree this is bad, and as you've alluded to requires reform. But my whole point is that as of now, by the letter of the law, this isn't illegal and doesn't infringe on constitutional rights. A policy reform could make it illegal and really change the way 1A applies to this specific issue, but that requires further legislation. As far as untoward election influencing, it is very difficult for me to see how Twitter promoting a bias within legal means is illegally influencing an election. It is just as impossible to prove that Dorsey is acting in bad faith to restrict access to or availability of content as it would be to prove a media conglomerate was actively trying to spread misinformation.

We obviously disagree on this and it appears I am the minority opinion here so I won't keep clogging the board up with this before Rino starts crying about political arguments on here again. Anyways, thanks for the distraction today, boys. This has been an interesting conversation.

As it stands now 230 is a one way street where platforms are protected from liability if their publishers say bad things and the platforms are given the right to moderate content "in good faith". There really isn't anything in 230 that penalizes publishers for doing a bad job of this and being heavy handed on one side of the aisle and lenient with the other because motives are incredibly difficult to prove. I think we both agree this is bad, and as you've alluded to requires reform. But my whole point is that as of now, by the letter of the law, this isn't illegal and doesn't infringe on constitutional rights. A policy reform could make it illegal and really change the way 1A applies to this specific issue, but that requires further legislation. As far as untoward election influencing, it is very difficult for me to see how Twitter promoting a bias within legal means is illegally influencing an election. It is just as impossible to prove that Dorsey is acting in bad faith to access to or availability of content as it would be to prove a media conglomerate was actively trying to spread misinformation.

We obviously disagree on this and it appears I am the minority opinion here so I won't keep clogging the board up with this before Rino starts crying about political arguments on here again. Anyways, thanks for the distraction today, boys. This has been an interesting conversation.
- Victoro311

Yeah, I think we found common ground here at least. And it was a rather civil conversation hahah sometimes uncommon in these parts.

As it stands now 230 is a one way street where platforms are protected from liability if their publishers say bad things and the platforms are given the right to moderate content "in good faith". There really isn't anything in 230 that penalizes publishers for doing a bad job of this and being heavy handed on one side of the aisle and lenient with the other because motives are incredibly difficult to prove. I think we both agree this is bad, and as you've alluded to requires reform. But my whole point is that as of now, by the letter of the law, this isn't illegal and doesn't infringe on constitutional rights. A policy reform could make it illegal and really change the way 1A applies to this specific issue, but that requires further legislation. As far as untoward election influencing, it is very difficult for me to see how Twitter promoting a bias within legal means is illegally influencing an election. It is just as impossible to prove that Dorsey is acting in bad faith to restrict access to or availability of content as it would be to prove a media conglomerate was actively trying to spread misinformation.

We obviously disagree on this and it appears I am the minority opinion here so I won't keep clogging the board up with this before Rino starts crying about political arguments on here again. Anyways, thanks for the distraction today, boys. This has been an interesting conversation.
- Victoro311

So, you think the fact that China was stating that our own military was giving everyone the Coronavirus on Twitter but Twitter didn't flag that for removal....is ok?

Well this thread went to poop. 2020 election is like the weirdest end to the strangest sporting event in history. (frank) all those guys.

Well this thread went to poop. 2020 election is like the weirdest end to the strangest sporting event in history. (frank) all those guys.
- Grinder47

Oh yeah they both suck lol

I don't disagree with any of this.
- Tojo.

Given what you posted, why do you say this? It really doesn’t matter if the defensive forward’s bread is buttered in the defensive or offensive zone. Either way the pick isn’t going towards the goal. What you posted argues is that ZAR isn’t an elite backchecker, he’s actually an elite forechecker, and his line greatly benefits from it.

Given what you posted, why do you say this? It really doesn’t matter if the defensive forward’s bread is buttered in the defensive or offensive zone. Either way the pick isn’t going towards the goal. What you posted argues is that ZAR isn’t an elite backchecker, he’s actually an elite forechecker, and his line greatly benefits from it.
- Victoro311

I actually thought Tojo made a typo when he wrote that haha.

There's some people up here, some I know very well and others that are social media acquaintances, that are like obsessed with Trump in a hatred way. I find this behavior fascinating in people that are fellow Canadians. I don't get how they could feel so strongly about the USA's current President that it really negatively impacts their daily lives, so much so that they spread it to others by posting anti Trump articles multiples times a day. They need to get a life. I can understand not liking the guy, especially when all you watch or read is the media that's heavily biased against him, but to be obsessed with him up here in Canada? hahaha Get a life. Get help. Get laid. Get something.

Given what you posted, why do you say this? It really doesn’t matter if the defensive forward’s bread is buttered in the defensive or offensive zone. Either way the pick isn’t going towards the goal. What you posted argues is that ZAR isn’t an elite backchecker, he’s actually an elite forechecker, and his line greatly benefits from it.
- Victoro311

The same could be said about taking Blueger or Tanev out of this lineup. I don't call ZAR the motor of the line that's all.
- Barnaby36

I don't disagree with any of this.

Why is that a typo?lol He agreed on this sentence only. Nobody hates ZAR, he's actually a good 4th liner.

There's some people up here, some I know very well and others that are social media acquaintances, that are like obsessed with Trump in a hatred way. I find this behavior fascinating in people that are fellow Canadians. I don't get how they could feel so strongly about the USA's current President that it really negatively impacts their daily lives, so much so that they spread it to others by posting anti Trump articles multiples times a day. They need to get a life. I can understand not liking the guy, especially when all you watch or read is the media that's heavily biased against him, but to be obsessed with him up here in Canada? hahaha Get a life. Get help. Get laid. Get something.
- MattStrat

You must know James Tanner personally then. That’s him in a nut shell lol

The same could be said about taking Blueger or Tanev out of this lineup. I don't call ZAR the motor of the line that's all.
- Barnaby36

I don't disagree with any of this.

Why is that a typo?lol He agreed on this sentence only. Nobody hates ZAR, he's actually a good 4th liner.
- Barnaby36

Because that line goes to absolute garbage without ZAR.

You must know James Tanner personally then. That’s him in a nut shell lol
- j.boyd919

hahah I do not know Jimmy Tanner.

Because that line goes to absolute garbage without ZAR.
- MattStrat

Cool lmao Won't argue about it anymore