Zimmerman denied access

[*bfine32*]

What do we think of this:

https://fox2now.com/2019/04/19/tinder-and-bumble-remove-george-zimmerman-from-their-platforms/

Quote:Tinder recently removed Zimmerman, who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012, from its platform. According to screen grabs of the profile obtained by Creative Loafing Tampa Bay, Zimmerman went by the alias “Carter” and claimed to be looking for “carefree, fun!”

According to the bio, “Carter” was a self-employed consultant who attended Liberty University who also happened to love the outdoors, fishing, camping and hiking. One of the screen grabs shows him shirtless and wearing sunglasses. Another shows him with a dog, and yet another shows him in a cap and gown.

“We take the safety of our users very seriously and acted appropriately once the profile was discovered,” a spokesperson for Tinder said in a statement.

Personally I think he's a little man that bit off more than he could chew, but a jury of his peers found him Not Guilty. Do we think it's "fair" that these sites remove him?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

It's their site, they can ban anybody they want.

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2019, 09:00 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: It's their site, they can ban anybody they want.

I didn't ask what they can do.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

If they removed everyone who misrepresented themselves on their Tinder profile, there would probably be like 6 people left.... or so I heard.

[6andcounting]

(04-19-2019, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't ask what they can do.

You made a post about George Zimmerman's Tinder account and someone actually gave a serious response. I wouldn't complain. lol

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(04-19-2019, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't ask what they can do.

It doesnt matter if it's fair or not, it's their site.

He could always sue I guess.

[CJD]

I think that the court of public opinion doesn't care what the courts say and people are welcome to hate people for their actions.

I also don't think non-government aided corporations (at least by the technical definition) need to (or should) abide by freedom of speech or any of the other boundaries that would theoretically disallow them from banning someone they don't want on their platform/app (you see it on Facebook/IG/Twitter all the time).

[Vas Deferens]

he's free to go create his own dating platform.

[GMDino]

I think a privately owned site with its own rules can accept or reject whomever they want according to those rules.

Just like this site does.

Was this question asked simply because it was about that POS Zimmerman?  

[BmorePat87]

I think it's fair for a private website to ban cowards who kill children.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 10:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think a privately owned site with its own rules can accept or reject whomever they want according to those rules.

Just like this site does.

Was this question asked simply because it was about that POS Zimmerman?  

Obviously is was brought up because of the dynamic of Zimmerman. He's a widely hated person (just see replies in this thread) that was found to be Not Guilty in a real courtroom. And now sites are banning him for something he was deemed not to have done. Maybe they're actually banning him because he's Hispanic 

Personally I could give two shits if the guy is banned, was just seeing if my liberal friends agree with me. So seldom we are all in accord. 

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  And now sites are banning him for something he was deemed not to have done. 

Actually it was just determined that the State did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Just like OJ.

[fredtoast]

Wait! What?!?

"Carter" is George Zimmerman?

Damn you Tinder!

[Belsnickel]

I don't really care much one way or the other. I would have less of an issue if they were like "he violated the Terms of Use by misrepresenting himself on his profile" rather than this bullshit "we're doing this for the safety of our community" line. But then they'd probably be bombarded with the "how many people misrepresent themselves on Tinder in a way that violates the community guidelines?" question, which is fair and probably would highlight the bias they are bringing to this decision.

Anyway, they can do it, I'm fine with them doing it. I'm just more peeved right now that this caused me to look at Tinder's website for the Terms of Use and all that and that was more interaction with the service than I ever wanted to have.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 11:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it was just determined that the State did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Just like OJ.

I'm no lawyer but doesn't that mean he is not guilty? Notice I didn't say innocent. 

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2019, 11:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm no lawyer but doesn't that mean he is not guilty? Notice I didn't say innocent. 

You said he did not do it.

That is different from being found "not guilty"

[GMDino]

(04-22-2019, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously is was brought up because of the dynamic of Zimmerman. He's a widely hated person (just see replies in this thread) that was found to be Not Guilty in a real courtroom. And now sites are banning him for something he was deemed not to have done. Maybe they're actually banning him because he's Hispanic 

Personally I could give two shits if the guy is banned, was just seeing if my liberal friends agree with me. So seldom we are all in accord. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You said he did not do it.

That is different from being found "not guilty"

I said he was "deemed" not to have done it. That's pretty much the same IMO. 

[CJD]

(04-22-2019, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously is was brought up because of the dynamic of Zimmerman. He's a widely hated person (just see replies in this thread) that was found to be Not Guilty in a real courtroom. And now sites are banning him for something he was deemed not to have done. Maybe they're actually banning him because he's Hispanic 

Personally I could give two shits if the guy is banned, was just seeing if my liberal friends agree with me. So seldom we are all in accord. 

It's interesting, because I feel like Liberals would typically fall on the side of "bad people shouldn't be given attention." It's the same reason many of them advocate white supremacists be banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc. Same reason people didn't want people like Ann Coulter speaking at public universities.

It's typically the conservatives that don't want public platforms to inhibit freedoms, as they see it.

I'd be more interested to see if your conservative friends agreed with you XD.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's interesting, because I feel like Liberals would typically fall on the side of "bad people shouldn't be given attention." It's the same reason many of them advocate white supremacists be banned from Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc. Same reason people didn't want people like Ann Coulter speaking at public universities.

It's typically the conservatives that don't want public platforms to inhibit freedoms, as they see it.

I'd be more interested to see if your conservative friends agreed with you XD.

Yeah, most conservatives fall on the side of free enterprise being able to select their customer base; as long as it doesn't break the CRA; like bakeries and the such. 

It was ironic. Today I was walking into a gas station in rural KY and it said Hoodies must be removed (or pulled off head,,,) before entering the facility.