furr

X

No one designs for IE6 anymore either. If it costs a lot more to support a platform that doesn't bring in money, it would be a terrible business decision.

"This is losing is a LOT of money, but it would be a nice thing to do" is not realistic.

we know

PROTESTing the removal of the statue of General Lee was the stated goal of the murderous Unite the Right protest.

PROTESTing the outcome of the 2020–21 U.S. election was the stated goal of the murderous Capitol protest.

The self-proclaimed protests that prove you wrong are suddenly not protests anymore? Once you learn what a strawman is, google "moving the goalposts."

I provided two examples where murderous right-wing protests were monitored and recorded by police, completely contradicting the idea that "I doubt we would see any news articles about it."

You've provided zero examples to support that blind speculation.

    don't use stupid stats like this

The stats that you didn't read already made this argument for you:

    Explanations that rest solely on the conservative politics and culture of the police...neglect the ways political systems, identities and organizations shape interactions between police and protesters

...but--my confirmation bias! How embarrassing, I can understand why you had to dodge the question.

    I'm "dodging" the NFL example, because again, I do not care about NFL. At all

Never asked if you did. It's a perfect example that you can't argue against.

    I'm taking about regulating the tech industry

Does the NFL count as a tech company? They have $91B market cap and actively develop new tech.

Are banks the "tech" industry? No, of course not. So you move the goalposts back to "just the tech companies!" when you lose.

> if the police were requesting footage from protests that happened from Trump supporters I doubt we would see any news articles about it

Police (and the FBI) requested footage of the Trump supporters' protest at the Capitol that left one police officer dead.

There were LOTS of news articles about it.

> I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies

I didn't ask if you did, I provided an excellent example of what you're describing.

In your scenario, the 1A would prohibit a business (the NFL), from restricting speech by an employee (Kapernick). This principle is what you're in favor of, correct?

"DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech?

The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. Parler is free to (and did) find another vendor in the free market. If this option isn't realistic, bust up the monopoly that prevents it.

If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee?