Lol not at all. Twitter has in fact decided pedophila doesn't go against their terms of service. So your analogy would only work of parks actually allowed homos jerking off which they don't.
Section 230 pretections they can not be held responsible......but Yes please help pass the word around. Those addicted to twitter could help by just not sharing the links and getting them potentially thousands of clicks.
Twitter is a company that has decided that pedophila and it's content does not violate their terms of service. Hence they support it by not condemning it. Posting something here with a link to twitter potentially provides thousands of clicks to them making them money....if people take a minute to screen shot or archive it instead it only gets one click not thousands.
This is like saying: Do you support homos jerking each other off in public places? Well, you do if you visit a public park.
Lol not at all. Twitter has in fact decided pedophila doesn't go against their terms of service. So your analogy would only work of parks actually allowed homos jerking off which they don't.
Well that's a disturbing development
https://loomered.com/2019/11/27/twitter-changes-terms-of-service-to-allow-explicit-photos-of-children-pedophile-content/
OMG no!
This is far worse than I imagined. It also will break all sorts of laws, when somebody actually posts such cringe.
And who will prosecute?
Thanks for the heinous update. I won't chop off the feet of the messenger.
Section 230 pretections they can not be held responsible......but Yes please help pass the word around. Those addicted to twitter could help by just not sharing the links and getting them potentially thousands of clicks.
You don't understand logic.
Twitter is a company that has decided that pedophila and it's content does not violate their terms of service. Hence they support it by not condemning it. Posting something here with a link to twitter potentially provides thousands of clicks to them making them money....if people take a minute to screen shot or archive it instead it only gets one click not thousands.
No. That's not how logic works. You've affirmed the consequent, which is a fallacy. Furthermore, your antecedent is unfounded.
Lol ok you go ahead and defend the platform the says pedophile content doesn't violate there terms of service.