Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Way to take it completely out of context. We're talking about Amway here. Ok, my bad. I thought we were still talking about Twitter. My apologies sir. Editing post to remove your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: How is it predatory? No one forces people to buy the products and try and sell them. And you clearly dont understand the difference because now you completely backtracked and are saying its "predatory." A pyramid scheme will always fail because you eventually run out of suckers. A Mary Kay salesman can make more money than me if they have good repeat customers. Your argument is the equivalent of saying an orange isnt food and then arguing you meant its not an apple. Yes they do, if you want to "work" for them. In order to "work for them" you have to buy the products first, out of your own pocket. Then, you try and sell them for more than you paid for them, or at the company's suggested price. It's predatory. Their prey are people who think they can sell but can't. And companies like that are laughing all the way to the bank. It would be different if you sold the products first, made an order, and then they shipped it to the person. And the demo products would be given out of the company's pocket rather than the salesperson. The entire business model is predatory. They know that there are a limited amount of people that can sell their shit and actually make money. The company does not make money on those people. They make money on the people who buy their stuff and cannot sell it. Let me guess, all of those loans that were given out by banks from 2002-07 weren't predatory either. Let's legalize loan sharking! Edited January 9, 2021 by Jack Parkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 14 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: If twitter is a public forum, then no private enterprise could ever restrict speech. This board could not ban, it could not stop me from creating political threads or doing whatever I want. That is why twitter can enforce its own rules, so long as those rules do not violate some other law (ie discrimination). I do believe if twitter banned every minority they would lose in court. But jackass, to the best of my knowledge, is still not a protected class. Internet is the primary form of modern communication serving as a public forum. If all private companies are allowed to block users then there is no public forum on the internet. Forums like Soxtalk aren’t analogous to social media like Twitter or Facebook because the sole purpose of those companies is to provide a general form of electronic communication so it is in effect serving as a public utility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Re: Twitter. No one has to provide a platform for specific content, and if you disagree with their practices - don't use their network and don't read content posted on there. https://xkcd.com/1357/ That’s just incorrect. First amendment free speech means the government can’t limit your access to communications, not that it simply can’t arrest you for them. this is why for example trump lost a first amendment case where it was ruled he couldn’t block people from his Twitter account because it blocked their access to a public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralChamps21 Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Vulture said: Internet is the primary form of modern communication serving as a public forum. If all private companies are allowed to block users then there is no public forum on the internet. Forums like Soxtalk aren’t analogous to social media like Twitter or Facebook because the sole purpose of those companies is to provide a general form of electronic communication so it is in effect serving as a public utility. The public portion of the internet is that anybody can get their own domain name and use it however they want. Nobody has a right to use a domain name that someone else owns. Just because Facebook has a billion users and Soxtalk has a thousand (or whatever, I'm guessing) doesn't make them inherently different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, Vulture said: That’s just incorrect. First amendment free speech means the government can’t limit your access to communications, not that it simply can’t arrest you for them. this is why for example trump lost a first amendment case where it was ruled he couldn’t block people from his Twitter account because it blocked their access to a public forum. Note the difference though. That was with Donald Trump as a public official, the President of the United States. That was not legislating the behavior of a private company, but of a government official. If Donald Trump was unwilling to accept the limits of service as a public official as set by US records law, Donald Trump could have resigned from his public position at any point, and I promise I would not have complained one bit. Twitter is a different entity under different rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said: The public portion of the internet is that anybody can get their own domain name and use it however they want. Nobody has a right to use a domain name that someone else owns. Just because Facebook has a billion users and Soxtalk has a thousand (or whatever, I'm guessing) doesn't make them inherently different. The purpose of each clearly makes them inherently different. Soxtalk and similar forums are specialized community forums that don’t serve as a modern base form of general communication like twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc do. Edited January 9, 2021 by Vulture 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 17 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Predatory. Quit equating it to other businesses. No, Amway, Mary Kay and other MLM schemes are not the same as Target and your local golf pro shop. You're being intellectually dishonest. It's the exact same. My local golf shop buys a product from a manufacturer and resells it. Someone else buys from Amway and resells it. What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Texsox said: It's the exact same. My local golf shop buys a product from a manufacturer and resells it. Someone else buys from Amway and resells it. What's the difference? See previous post. The difference is likelihood of profit. When a company like Amway sells to their "salespeople" they KNOW that the majority of people that buy their shit will not be able to re-sell it at all. Where it becomes a scam is that it requires their people to buy the stuff out of pocket before it is sold. They are not a store that specifically sells these products, among others. Get real. Edited January 9, 2021 by Jack Parkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, Balta1701 said: Note the difference though. That was with Donald Trump as a public official, the President of the United States. That was not legislating the behavior of a private company, but of a government official. If Donald Trump was unwilling to accept the limits of service as a public official as set by US records law, Donald Trump could have resigned from his public position at any point, and I promise I would not have complained one bit. Twitter is a different entity under different rules. My point was the case had nothing to do with arresting someone over speech which the comment I responded claimed was the sole purpose of free speech. Although that case does confirm that Twitter serves as a public forum as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 lmao What a week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: Yes they do, if you want to "work" for them. In order to "work for them" you have to buy the products first, out of your own pocket. Then, you try and sell them for more than you paid for them, or at the company's suggested price. It's predatory. Their prey are people who think they can sell but can't. And companies like that are laughing all the way to the bank. It would be different if you sold the products first, made an order, and then they shipped it to the person. And the demo products would be given out of the company's pocket rather than the salesperson. The entire business model is predatory. They know that there are a limited amount of people that can sell their shit and actually make money. The company does not make money on those people. They make money on the people who buy their stuff and cannot sell it. Therefore, it is predatory. Youre just wrong. And the more you argue the worse you make yourself look. In your opinion its predatory. In the opinion of any person who has dealt with numerous straight commission contracts its pretty normal. I mean why isnt any company predatory who sells to any middle man? I mean when the farmer sells cheese to a restaurant he knows there is more cheese sold than will be eaten and that some of the restaurants will fail. Shouldn't he give the cheese away and then only collect if the restaurant sells the lizza? 4 minutes ago, Vulture said: Internet is the primary form of modern communication serving as a public forum. If all private companies are allowed to block users then there is no public forum on the internet. Forums like Soxtalk aren’t analogous to social media like Twitter or Facebook because the sole purpose of those companies is to provide a general form of electronic communication so it is in effect serving as a public utility. There are multiple different forums that you can use. You dont have to use Twitter, faceboon or whatever will be the new technology 5 years from now. A public utility is based on the idea that I could not get water from any other source because there is only 1 water line going to my house. Things like electricity go over public utility easements. Twitter does none of these things. A competitor could come tomorrow and wipe them out. Facebook isnt some unique thing, its no better than MySpace. The govt has no place in forcing private entities how to operate. Its opening a pandoras box that will vastly expand federal power and is not going to end well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Vulture said: That’s just incorrect. First amendment free speech means the government can’t limit your access to communications, not that it simply can’t arrest you for them. this is why for example trump lost a first amendment case where it was ruled he couldn’t block people from his Twitter account because it blocked their access to a public forum. The government didn't limit anyone's access to communications when it comes to Trump not being able to post on a private platform like Twitter. And if that's what you want, I have a hunch that a BUNCH of Trump fans aren't going to like the idea of the government being able to tell private business owners how they should operate. Don't they want less government oversight, not more? Edited January 9, 2021 by Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: Youre just wrong. And the more you argue the worse you make yourself look. In your opinion its predatory. In the opinion of any person who has dealt with numerous straight commission contracts its pretty normal. I mean why isnt any company predatory who sells to any middle man? I mean when the farmer sells cheese to a restaurant he knows there is more cheese sold than will be eaten and that some of the restaurants will fail. Shouldn't he give the cheese away and then only collect if the restaurant sells the lizza? There are multiple different forums that you can use. You dont have to use Twitter, faceboon or whatever will be the new technology 5 years from now. A public utility is based on the idea that I could not get water from any other source because there is only 1 water line going to my house. Things like electricity go over public utility easements. Twitter does none of these things. A competitor could come tomorrow and wipe them out. Facebook isnt some unique thing, its no better than MySpace. The govt has no place in forcing private entities how to operate. Its opening a pandoras box that will vastly expand federal power and is not going to end well. I think straight commission is predatory as well. I mean when we get down to it, capitalism itself is predatory. We accept it, but that doesn't mean it's not predatory. We need to expand fraud to cover more things, imo. Every business practice is predatory to some degree. It's a matter of where we draw the line. RE: the bolded. I strongly, vehemently disagree here. That is one of the major purposes of government. We need more government regulation of business, not less. Business has proven many times that it cannot be trusted. Edited January 9, 2021 by Jack Parkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 12 minutes ago, Vulture said: That’s just incorrect. First amendment free speech means the government can’t limit your access to communications, not that it simply can’t arrest you for them. this is why for example trump lost a first amendment case where it was ruled he couldn’t block people from his Twitter account because it blocked their access to a public forum. You have this ruling completely backwards. It is that a govt official couldn't do something, not Twitter. You fundamentally misunderstand the argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 4 hours ago, Balta1701 said: So at what point do we go back and quote the people in this thread who said how dare we say there was absolutely zero evidence and no way that there could have been substantial numbers of capitol police conspiring with the rioters? At the time they were no facts to back it - just wild conjecture. Now I would say facts seem to back those claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, Chisoxfn said: At the time they were no facts to back it - just wild conjecture. Now I would say facts seem to back those claims. I believe at that point the videos we had seen were clearly sufficient to understand what had happened. We didn't know every single detail, but we had seen easily enough of people standing aside, removing barriers, and taking selfies by that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulture Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Soxbadger said: You have this ruling completely backwards. It is that a govt official couldn't do something, not Twitter. You fundamentally misunderstand the argument. No I get that. My point was first amendment free speech does more than simply preventing the government from arresting you. In that case they ruled the rights of those who brought the suit were violated because it blocked their access to a public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, Vulture said: My point was the case had nothing to do with arresting someone over speech which the comment I responded claimed was the sole purpose of free speech. Although that case does confirm that Twitter serves as a public forum as well. If President Hawley chose not to run a Twitter account, could Twitter sue him for refusing to use their network? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: I think straight commission is predatory as well. I mean when we get down to it, capitalism itself is predatory. We accept it, but that doesn't mean it's not predatory. We need to expand fraud to cover more things, imo. Every business practice is predatory to some degree. It's a matter of where we draw the line. Well you beat me to it. Everything is predatory by your argument. My job is predatory because they know I need money and that without my job I won't survive. The difference is your opinion isnt a fact. And you have every right to your opinion, but you should make it clear you are making an argument based on your opinion, not on an everyday interpretation of how the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Soxbadger said: Well you beat me to it. Everything is predatory by your argument. My job is predatory because they know I need money and that without my job I won't survive. The difference is your opinion isnt a fact. And you have every right to your opinion, but you should make it clear you are making an argument based on your opinion, not on an everyday interpretation of how the world works. No, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. The bolded just proved my point. Is that statement not true? Will you be able to survive without a job? And yes, it is an everyday interpretation of how the world works. The opinion comes in on where we draw the line. That is opinion. Edited January 9, 2021 by Jack Parkman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Vulture said: No I get that. My point was first amendment free speech does more than simply preventing the government from arresting you. In that case they ruled the rights of those who brought the suit were violated because it blocked their access to a public forum. I dont have any idea about that because I have never equated 1a with "arrest." And I think you should reread the case. The public forum wasnt "Twitter", it was Trump's account. You're misinterpreting the argument. The lawsuit was against Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: No, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. The bolded just proved my point. And yes, it is an everyday interpretation of how the world works. The opinion comes in on where we draw the line. That is opinion. You're wrong and that is a fact not an opinion. Maybe one day you'll find the time to learn from someone else who may just know a little bit more than you on a subject, but that day clearly isnt today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, Soxbadger said: You're wrong and that is a fact not an opinion. Maybe one day you'll find the time to learn from someone else who may just know a little bit more than you on a subject, but that day clearly isnt today. We'll have to agree to disagree bud. Cheers. No hard feelings. Edited January 9, 2021 by Jack Parkman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralChamps21 Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 27 minutes ago, Texsox said: It's the exact same. My local golf shop buys a product from a manufacturer and resells it. Someone else buys from Amway and resells it. What's the difference? The manufacturer and distributor for your golf shop likely have hundreds, if not thousands of retailers that they make money from by selling the product, so they don't need to put any more pressure on the golf shop owner then he's putting on himself. If you're selling Amway the first couple people up the chain don't have a lot of people making them money so they're putting more pressure on you to sell. That is what some might interpret as predatory. I don't think of it as predatory and don't think it should be outlawed, but it's most definitely different than standard retail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts