I talk with several other private forum owners regularly and found that out today. I'll post what I find out too.
The Mustang Forum for Track & Racing Enthusiasts
Taking your Mustang to an open track/HPDE event for the first time? Do you race competitively? This forum is for you! Log in to remove most ads.
- Welcome to the Ford Mustang forum built for owners of the Mustang GT350, BOSS 302, GT500, and all other S550, S197, SN95, Fox Body and older Mustangs set up for open track days, road racing, and/or autocross. Join our forum, interact with others, share your build, and help us strengthen this community!
Riots in DC
- Thread starterblacksheep-1
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
- Status
I agree, waiting to see if they post an update on the situation.
ChrisM
Mostly harmless.
STOP BEING SO REASONABLE.
- Thread starter
- #144
- 6,443
- 8,367
The reason I pointed this out is because elections shouldn't even have a hint of impropriety.
I couldn't agree more. That there's even a question is too much.
BTW - I went to AR15.com a few minutes ago and it opened right up with no problems. All seems well.
ChrisM
Mostly harmless.
It's their archived ar15.com back up site. Guess they've been prepared for this. When you open it, look at the tab. It says ar15-backup.com. I still can't log in.
ChrisM
Mostly harmless.
Here's their official statement:
AR15.com Backup Site Live, Switching to First Amendment Friendly Site Registrar
On Monday, January 11, 2021, I received notice from our site registrar that AR15.com had violated their terms of service and that AR15.com would be shut down immediately. The registrar’s decision to de-platform AR15.com was final and no method to appeal was offered.
It remains unclear specifically what content allegedly violated the registrar’s terms of service.
However, I am happy to report that we have found a new, First Amendment-friendly site registrar and we have begun the process of transitioning AR15.com to the new registrar.
We expect the switchover to take up to 5 days. During that time, our famous “AR15.com” URL will not be usable. Once the switchover is complete, AR15.com will be fully restored to normal function.
In the meantime, I welcome freedom lovers and firearm enthusiasts to visit us at our temporary URL: www.ar15-backup.com. We will post on the backup site when the normal AR15.com has been completely restored.
Juan Avila, President & Co-Founder, AR15.com
AR15.com Backup Site Live, Switching to First Amendment Friendly Site Registrar
On Monday, January 11, 2021, I received notice from our site registrar that AR15.com had violated their terms of service and that AR15.com would be shut down immediately. The registrar’s decision to de-platform AR15.com was final and no method to appeal was offered.
It remains unclear specifically what content allegedly violated the registrar’s terms of service.
However, I am happy to report that we have found a new, First Amendment-friendly site registrar and we have begun the process of transitioning AR15.com to the new registrar.
We expect the switchover to take up to 5 days. During that time, our famous “AR15.com” URL will not be usable. Once the switchover is complete, AR15.com will be fully restored to normal function.
In the meantime, I welcome freedom lovers and firearm enthusiasts to visit us at our temporary URL: www.ar15-backup.com. We will post on the backup site when the normal AR15.com has been completely restored.
Juan Avila, President & Co-Founder, AR15.com
- Thread starter
- #148
- 6,443
- 8,367
Lol
Google and Apple just dropped Gab
Damn those free speech forums!!
Google and Apple just dropped Gab
Damn those free speech forums!!
- Thread starter
- #149
- 6,443
- 8,367
Even the ACLU has figured it out
ktrh.iheart.com
Even The ACLU Is Expressing Concern About The Power Of Big Tech After President Trump Is Deplatformed | NewsRadio 740 KTRH
Even The ACLU Is Expressing Concern About The Power Of Big Tech After President Trump Is Deplatformed
Random stream of consciousness here.
God forbid we have to go to a world all the way 10 years ago when social media wasn’t the only way the majority of this country interacted.
Also amazon or any of the mega tech companies can only “deplatform” you if you’ve built your digital business with their service or on their shoulders. There’s plenty of hosting services the world over...
Also it’s a long employed logical fallacy to say because two people hold differing views that they deserve equal consideration/press time. That only works when both views or propositions have equal merit or probability of being correct. This has been employee by climate deniers for ages. Just because you found a scientist who is willing to say climate change isn’t real, doesn’t mean blackbody radiation doesn’t exist. Venus is a second from the sun and magnitudes hotter than mercury. I’ll stick with physics. So perhaps just because someone has a belief let’s say Qanon, should they be given the same airtime and consideration as someone representing a position that can be validated?
God forbid we have to go to a world all the way 10 years ago when social media wasn’t the only way the majority of this country interacted.
Also amazon or any of the mega tech companies can only “deplatform” you if you’ve built your digital business with their service or on their shoulders. There’s plenty of hosting services the world over...
Also it’s a long employed logical fallacy to say because two people hold differing views that they deserve equal consideration/press time. That only works when both views or propositions have equal merit or probability of being correct. This has been employee by climate deniers for ages. Just because you found a scientist who is willing to say climate change isn’t real, doesn’t mean blackbody radiation doesn’t exist. Venus is a second from the sun and magnitudes hotter than mercury. I’ll stick with physics. So perhaps just because someone has a belief let’s say Qanon, should they be given the same airtime and consideration as someone representing a position that can be validated?
I’ve run into that with Google ads in the past with another site but not with the hosting company. It is something forum owners worry about though. We are at the mercy of the TOS of the hosting companies. The fact that they didn’t give them the opportunity to resolve the issue is concerning.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the major tech platform providers were asked to disrupt the quasi-anonymous communication channels that the forums and social media systems provide. All it would take is a quick scan of the posted messages looking for people who appear to be conspiring to hurt other people, perhaps around January 20th or so. Where groups of users talking that way are found, the platform goes off the air so fast that people who were chatting behind their screen names and avatars suddenly can't reach their buddies any more. Most of that chatter is probably harmless, but some of it might not be. Of course, I'm just speculating. Could be they weren't paying their bills on time or something. We'll see over the next few weeks how this all turns out.
ChrisM
Mostly harmless.
They've already migrated to a friendlier server. According to the thread there, it was the host that took them offline with little reason given. They negotiated with GoDaddy and managed to get 24 hours of reprieve to change hosts. Should be back up and running soon enough.
TMSBOSS
Spending my pension on car parts and track fees.
“Also it’s a long employed logical fallacy to say because two people hold differing views that they deserve equal consideration/press time”
/scootsmcgreggor
Did you really say this? Your quote is the essence of biased censorship. When you apply that to a discussion regarding elected officials, the “Slippery Slope” was just greased. Of course two opposing views deserve equal consideration. To “Not consider” is Prejudgement. For example, I will not consider any statement made by Scootsmcgreggor because of his statement listed above, I prejudge you because of what ever I feel is in line with my views. To allow this to apply to an elected official strikes the core of our freedoms.
Consider. think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.
So, to not consider a view is to prejudge. To not present it, especially when it is the view of an elected official is extremely dangerous.
I believe your statement captures the essence of the problem. One side decides why someone has made a decision outside their understanding on a subject. Therefore All Decisions made by the side in question are now to be ignored, and or cast off without thought of consideration.
And here is why many people have come to doubt climate change, your example. Which change??? The coming ice age, the total pollution of drinking water (before outer bicentennial) the flooding of the worlds surfaces and many more “scientific facts”....... that were not. These have all been present to Me in my life time as facts. Now it’s up to me to believe it or not. Yes, I doubt science. If you recall, doubt is what makes science possible. Unless you want to politicize a finding, discovery and analysis must be fluid. I guess until someone disagrees with YOU!! Then do they no longer deserve a platform to speak? Is that what we are witnessing today? Scary
Should we now limit time allocated to anyone because we disagree.....one side must be right.....right? The other......does not deserve consideration. How is this not the essence of censorship? How can an internet platform do this?
Democracy demands all sides deserve an equal voice. To answer your final question in the string. “should they be given the same airtime and consideration as someone representing a position that can be validated?” YES. Without this ”Consideration” censorship is the the rule of the day.
The rules I try to live by. 1. A bad idea will die a natural death. 2. Never trust anyone to make your judgements for you. Statement above seem to ignore both of these ideas while granting permission to the “Press” to decide if a persons opinions are worth “Consideration” before they are even presented. Millions of Americans decided through the previous election or what could be considered “Due Process” who the nations representative was. To block that Representative is not just wrong, it’s dangerous and prejudicial. Let the bad idea die a natural death!! I seldom agree with the views and in my opinion outrageous statements of our house speaker as well as congressperson Waters. But to not consider their words, or in case of Twitter stop the flow, destroys the foundation of our systems. Allowing the press/internet to do so wholesale deserves correction.
We don’t block the words of any publicly elected official, for several reasons. One of the most compelling in my mind is people need to live with the consequences of their decisions. How do they do so when the Data flow is blocked?
For Internet outlets to block assess to an elected ofificial or anyone wholesale is wrong.
Now we have to decide if the Internet is public and if providers should fall under the same rules of public access. I could not imaging the public allowing any network the latitude to say person X or group W no longer has the right to speak on our public forum. To do so with an elected official is mind boggling We just saw this regarding internet platforms. I believe they stepped over a very important line in a very negative way. That’s the discussion to have more so than concentration on a flailing lane duck.
/scootsmcgreggor
Did you really say this? Your quote is the essence of biased censorship. When you apply that to a discussion regarding elected officials, the “Slippery Slope” was just greased. Of course two opposing views deserve equal consideration. To “Not consider” is Prejudgement. For example, I will not consider any statement made by Scootsmcgreggor because of his statement listed above, I prejudge you because of what ever I feel is in line with my views. To allow this to apply to an elected official strikes the core of our freedoms.
Consider. think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.
So, to not consider a view is to prejudge. To not present it, especially when it is the view of an elected official is extremely dangerous.
I believe your statement captures the essence of the problem. One side decides why someone has made a decision outside their understanding on a subject. Therefore All Decisions made by the side in question are now to be ignored, and or cast off without thought of consideration.
And here is why many people have come to doubt climate change, your example. Which change??? The coming ice age, the total pollution of drinking water (before outer bicentennial) the flooding of the worlds surfaces and many more “scientific facts”....... that were not. These have all been present to Me in my life time as facts. Now it’s up to me to believe it or not. Yes, I doubt science. If you recall, doubt is what makes science possible. Unless you want to politicize a finding, discovery and analysis must be fluid. I guess until someone disagrees with YOU!! Then do they no longer deserve a platform to speak? Is that what we are witnessing today? Scary
Should we now limit time allocated to anyone because we disagree.....one side must be right.....right? The other......does not deserve consideration. How is this not the essence of censorship? How can an internet platform do this?
Democracy demands all sides deserve an equal voice. To answer your final question in the string. “should they be given the same airtime and consideration as someone representing a position that can be validated?” YES. Without this ”Consideration” censorship is the the rule of the day.
The rules I try to live by. 1. A bad idea will die a natural death. 2. Never trust anyone to make your judgements for you. Statement above seem to ignore both of these ideas while granting permission to the “Press” to decide if a persons opinions are worth “Consideration” before they are even presented. Millions of Americans decided through the previous election or what could be considered “Due Process” who the nations representative was. To block that Representative is not just wrong, it’s dangerous and prejudicial. Let the bad idea die a natural death!! I seldom agree with the views and in my opinion outrageous statements of our house speaker as well as congressperson Waters. But to not consider their words, or in case of Twitter stop the flow, destroys the foundation of our systems. Allowing the press/internet to do so wholesale deserves correction.
We don’t block the words of any publicly elected official, for several reasons. One of the most compelling in my mind is people need to live with the consequences of their decisions. How do they do so when the Data flow is blocked?
For Internet outlets to block assess to an elected ofificial or anyone wholesale is wrong.
Now we have to decide if the Internet is public and if providers should fall under the same rules of public access. I could not imaging the public allowing any network the latitude to say person X or group W no longer has the right to speak on our public forum. To do so with an elected official is mind boggling We just saw this regarding internet platforms. I believe they stepped over a very important line in a very negative way. That’s the discussion to have more so than concentration on a flailing lane duck.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #155
- 6,443
- 8,367
“Also it’s a long employed logical fallacy to say because two people hold differing views that they deserve equal consideration/press time”
/scootsmcgreggor
Ever hear of a book called Hitler's Cross by some guy named Luttze? It details how the German church was manipulated into serving the Nazi party, that party, the National Socialist's Party was pretty much centered on the occult at it's core, yet it manipulated them into doing the bidding of the controlling group. The reason is that no one would stand up and say it was wrong, for fear of threats and intimidation, people were harassed and hunted down in their private lives, businesses burned and looted, history rewritten, the press controlled, as long as it didn't effect them it didn't matter.... until it did.
We're past the first chapter..
/scootsmcgreggor
Ever hear of a book called Hitler's Cross by some guy named Luttze? It details how the German church was manipulated into serving the Nazi party, that party, the National Socialist's Party was pretty much centered on the occult at it's core, yet it manipulated them into doing the bidding of the controlling group. The reason is that no one would stand up and say it was wrong, for fear of threats and intimidation, people were harassed and hunted down in their private lives, businesses burned and looted, history rewritten, the press controlled, as long as it didn't effect them it didn't matter.... until it did.
We're past the first chapter..
Okay Boys....We gotta let this go......It's starting to fester into something nobody wants....so much for my 7777 count.............
Lucky for us, we have the courts to help dole out justice on these matters. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all plays out. If I've heard any message being pushed in previous times of protest, it's the message of law and order. Let's see how our legal system handles things.
TymeSlayer
Tramps like us, Baby we were born to run...
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
Any tyme you take one opinion and make it a collective of the entire group, you create prejudice.
Politicians and the fourth estate do no always practice what the preach.
I with Bob. Gotta finish off my year end business review and start spending more tyme with Sweet Lorraine.
And for what it's worth, I've been telling people for years that social media networks like Facebook are bad news for a lot of things - take the automotive community for example - a lot of people are using FB groups to chat about car topics. Nobody seems to care that FB can (and does) remove any FB group for any reason, or no reason whatsoever, at any given time. If you use FB groups for tech discussions that tech information disappears if the group gets shut down, never to be useful to others ever again. And in recent months, FB has even started moderating groups directly, themselves, and threatening to shut down the groups based on user complaints. Won't take long before disgruntled group members start putting in fake complaints to get the group removed. People who create and manage groups on FB to build up a big community around a given subject run the risk of it being sabotaged or just plain erased - the content that is posted in that group cannot be backed up and/or ported to another platform like a forum can. Not that FB is good for archived content anyway, but whatever good content that was posted in a deleted group is gone for good. FB groups are bad for the automotive world (and other communities), for more reasons than just this, but this is a big one. The only reason we have a FB group for TMO is to use it as a net to let people know this forum exists.
Problem is, I'm just one voice - there doesn't seem to be too many others voicing this concern, and not a huge amount of people leaving FB to join forums. Some people will play along and tell others on FB to go use forums for car topics but then they, themselves are found on FB posting regularly a few weeks later about car topics, instead of using forums.
Problem is, I'm just one voice - there doesn't seem to be too many others voicing this concern, and not a huge amount of people leaving FB to join forums. Some people will play along and tell others on FB to go use forums for car topics but then they, themselves are found on FB posting regularly a few weeks later about car topics, instead of using forums.
And that's pretty much what's happening all over the place. Thing is, some opinions are going to be wrong, even if they can't be fully proven to be wrong. Hell, even if they can some will deny the proof anyway. It appears people will believe the opinion regardless when it is a collective of the group they identify with. If the opinion itself includes the notion that anyone who opposes that opinion is lying and/or is brainwashed how can there be a discussion with any sort of reason or any reconciliation? I think both a lot of us recognize this and are concerned about the dangers.
There is one belief that fraud led to a false election result. Naturally, the only meaningful outcome that would appease those who believe this then would be to invalidate the results. But what if the courts don't rule favorably to that argument? The next step is to forcefully revolt and remove those in office who don't push to invalidate the results - to essentially force their will upon the republic. That action would lead those who don't share that belief (or are unconvinced of the proof) to feel that they are being overridden and overruled by people who can't accept the idea that the majority simply voted for the other candidate. Both sides will cite tyranny and both sides will believe their cause is just.
If the courts make decisions on this should we accept those rulings only if it aligns with what we believe? To reject the court's decisions (even the decision that there wasn't enough proof to warrant taking on the case) would likely send us on a path that could ultimately lead to widespread violence by people who truly believe they are fighting against tyranny on one side or the other. Again, where does it end? Who has the voice of reason?
I like Tracy's take on letting bad ideas die a natural death, but what if those bad ideas lead to heavy suppression of one group's voice by society? What if they lead to people being hurt and/or killed? What if they lead to all out revolution? How do you counter bad ideas if all those who try to counter them are seen as the enemy? History has shown that what people believe doesn't necessarily need to be true in order for it to snowball into horrific outcomes. We need to preserve free speech and the free sharing of ideas. We also need to be careful that destructive rhetoric and propaganda messaging isn't fueling our actions and our reactions, especially if they lead to more violence, destruction and death. How do we achieve both effectively though? It's a tricky balance and I certainly don't have the answers. And even if I did who would listen to little ole me anyway?
- Status
TMO Supporting Vendors
