77
Comments (40)
sorted by:
19
Mamapedia 19 points ago +19 / -0

Fuck, I'm out.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
16
starsabove 16 points ago +16 / -0

Not much of a free speech platform then, though I get the pornography block. Most platforms do block (hardcore) pornography, or at least, age restrict it.

Definitely not a fan of blocking cussing or blasphemy though . . . reeks of Sharia law.

4
SCP0073 4 points ago +4 / -0

Agreed. I’ll stick with Gab.

15
here2red 15 points ago +15 / -0

Block swearing?! WTF?

6
KPeteTheBeast 6 points ago +6 / -0

Is offended, but does not swear. :)

4
saltyviewer123 4 points ago +4 / -0

Swearing acronyms probably ok.

0
Olds77 0 points ago +3 / -3

This is for old folks. Good on Mike as he can get them off Facebook where most of them probably don't want to see it.

12
TrumpWonByALandslide 12 points ago +12 / -0

I can understand wanting no porn, but other than that there shouldn't be restrictions, except obviously for illegal content.

8
DEPORT_DOOMERS 8 points ago +9 / -1

Then it’s not a free speech platform dumbfuck Q tard

8
GhostOfMyFormerSelf 8 points ago +8 / -0

...that will keep the commies out. (and most everyone else too)

6
TheUpsetter 6 points ago +6 / -0

I appreciate what mike is trying to do, but this isn’t going to go anywhere

5
ObamakilledJoan 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well shit, that fucking sucks.

2
DebbieinDallas 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well said 🤣

5
oldftg 5 points ago +5 / -0

That's a difficult proposition given that commies make me swear incessantly. I tone it a bit online but ain't being told no.

5
OriginalDementiacrat 5 points ago +6 / -1

Well shucks, who needs profane language anyways? I'll tell ya who, a nickel backed worthless son of a buck, thats who. We are more evolved here. Joggers and riggers beware...

5
CynicalTwit22 5 points ago +6 / -1

That's gonna be a hard pass.

4
Changed777 4 points ago +5 / -1

Everyone might want to think about the following: the Founders are the ones who came up with free speech and they also said that the Constitution would only work for religious and moral people. When blasphemy immorality are embraced, you won't be able to keep the Constitution. The Founder's knew the direct correlation.

2
Jlin 2 points ago +2 / -0

And enforcing things on others destroys our freedoms just as quickly. Self control is the only control worth having.

2
Changed777 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes. The self control has to come from God. 'those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants' . There is a direct correlation between liberty and Godliness and between tyranny and ungodliness. The Founder's knew it and that's why they said that the Constitution is wholly inadequate for any people other than religious and moral.

1
LostInUS 1 point ago +1 / -0

That includes "blasphemy" against Islam, right?

2
Changed777 2 points ago +2 / -0

Blasphemy is the act of defaming God. Islam is Satanic. You can't blaspheme Satan.

1
LostInUS 1 point ago +1 / -0

And you can't blaspheme a false so-called Abrahamic "God" either. But now you have to pick a diety, don't you. If Mike Lindell claims that blasphemy only includes defaming the Christian Trinity and/or the Jewish Yahweh, but doesn't include the Islamic Allah, or any other religion's god(s), then maybe you have a point. Otherwise, it's moronically vague.

2
Changed777 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Founders who coined the 'free speech' that you want, said it would be yours in tandem with morals and religion , which were the morals and religion of Jesus Christ. Christ/Christianity is referenced in all the founding documents and discussion that birthed those papers. Not deism. Not other Gods. Christianity. The Founders said that you will lose the Constitition if you lose the morals of the Christian religion. And this is exactly what is happening.

3
Mtnlion667 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's his site, so I guess he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Go pillow dude

I'm 100% in agreement w the porn blocking but I can't support the 1A restriction. Not that I was joining anyway, P.W is my only social media.

3
frothy 3 points ago +4 / -1

He's a heavily religious person, so this is not a surprise.

The site can block curse words without limiting speech. A lot of sites already do so by replacing bad words with astrix. Not hard to figure out what word the author was trying to use.

Blocking porn? Good. Not every site on the internet needs to have porn plastered across it. Its easy to find if that's what you are looking for. Hell, I get annoyed when porn is posted here. Time and place...

2
Shaffro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Shucky darn.

1
DebbieinDallas 1 point ago +1 / -0

Doesnt have the same punch as you know what

2
lordvon 2 points ago +2 / -0

pornography you have to block because then it becomes unusable for most. blasphemy is ok (assuming it is not hard to accidentally do) but swearing is a no-go for most. but perhaps it will work? it would definitely be a positive thing if people didnt mind adhering to it. more i think about it, the better i like this idea actually. i think swearing is a big part of why social media sites generally feel crappy to be on.

1
LostInUS 1 point ago +1 / -0

So we can't talk about Islam without accepting it's true, because otherwise "blasphemy", right?

1
lordvon 1 point ago +1 / -0

christian blasphemy is the only real blasphemy. well see how they define it. aloha snackbars can go blow themselves up.

1
LostInUS 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hope that's intended to be sarcastic....

1
lordvon 1 point ago +1 / -0

tongue-in-cheek, but not a bad outcome

2
becky21k1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay, sparky, how is that free speech?

2
NoseNoticer 2 points ago +2 / -0

FREE SPEECH BTW

1
China4Biden 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Somebody cursed. I'm triggered. REEEEEE!!!!"

1
DebbieinDallas 1 point ago +1 / -0

Prepare to fail if I cant say fuck when I want

0
gushgosh 0 points ago +4 / -4

Fuck jesus wide rectum, I'm out! lol!

-1
Jlin -1 points ago +3 / -4

People have been jerking this guy off for too long. He's not our savior. Not everything he touches turns to gold. Go look at my pillow.com, the site sucks. Why would anyone expect different?