Comments
-
Shut up and take my money!
-
Our freedom was garaunteed to disappear when he lost. All hail the new tech dictators.
-
@CocoasBro, “lost”
-
@CocoasBro, you understand Twitter is well within it’s rights to ban Trump, right? Like, that’s a private company. It’s because of the freedom we have that Twitter is able to ban him.
-
@AceWolf456, anyone who makes the private company argument doesnt understand the situation. Yes they are a private company. Yes they can ban who they like but if they stop acting as a public platform they should have the protections of a public platform removed from them. Social media companies have specific federal protections from lawsuits that allow them to exist in return they are supposed to act as un-partisan public platforms.
-
@AceWolf456, nah dude thats a freedom that doesnt suit them. Freedom only counts if it lets them do what they want.
-
@CocoasBro, You know what gives a public platform to people to spread ideas. Religion, they are given the freedom to say what they want and can easily ban people from saying what they dont like in their places of worship. Should we take away their privillages until they allow anyone to speak freely there or is that different?
-
@bonja, places of worship are private property. Not a public forum. Thats like saying "geez you can kick people out of your house so its okay to ban people from speaking in public"
-
@MMSieBreeze, nah were not counting votes. You vote watchers can go home now.
-
@CocoasBro, I highly recommend you read these platforms' ToS. You agree to the ToS when you use their service, which means they can do whatever they want with your content. Including shutting it down or taking it off. They're not a public forum, they're a private forum that allow access to those who agree to their terms of service, and revoke access to those who violate their terms of service. It's perfectly legal and legitimate and honestly you have no grounds to complain.
-
@Mhael, people can can complain about whatever they want. Twitter does not enforce there ToS in a consistent manner though. Some animals are more equal than others.
-
@Mag3rPayne, yes they can. But that doesn't make their complaints valid. And again, they have the right to enforce their ToS in any way they want because they are legally a private forum. I wasn't saying he can't complain, I'm saying his complaint has no merit, it's invalid.
-
@CocoasBro, ok every news platform MUST have all types of speaker on it. So e.g. fox news HAS to spread communist propaganda at some point because they are providing a platform to present media to the public. Obvs I'm against this...its all hyperbole to show how all these people crying about being booted off twitter are pushing for the reduction in freedom. Where do we draw the line if we force private companies to service those they don't want to. If I owned a company and someone came into shouting and annoying my other customers I for sure would want to kick them out. They can have their free speech but I reserve my right to kick them out of my business. I don't want a nanny state forcing us to have to listen to everyone who crys everytime people ignore them.
-
@AceWolf456, oh NOW you're all about private businesses and their rights?
-
@Mhael, then let people sue Twitter directly over copyright infringements taking place on their platform.
-
@Captain Swordsman, that's why DMCA exists. If twitter didn't have a system or failed to use their system to account for DMCA, they literally can get sued over copyright infringement.
-
@CocoasBro, no, see, Twitter didn’t make itself into this massive public platform, the users did. And you realize they aren’t a news site right? They don’t have to be unbiased.
-
@AceWolf456, Twitter is a public platform in the eyes of the senate, and other government branches. They have public platform protection, so they cannot be held accountable for anything said on their platform. But that also means, they are to give an equal voice to anyone not violating their ToS, which is basically don't be racist. The problem is, they act as a private publisher, censoring their own customers, most of them not violating any ToS. If they want to pick and choose who gets to have a say, then they should lose the public forum protection.
-
@Mhael, I highly recommend you read section 230. They get specific protections from lawsuits as long as they act as a public forum. Your assertion that they are private platforms is misinformed. Not wrong but not informed. Secondly the only reason their protections under section 230 has not been revoked is the legal grey area regarding their TOS, their sheer power and influence, and Republicans cucking. Their TOS is not supposed to violate the terms of section 230 and they dont but their TOS is so broad and ill defined they have been using it as a way to skirt the law on it.
-
@AceWolf456, Read what I said above. Section 230. Special protections. Clearly violated. Dont deserve.
-
@CocoasBro, you're really wrong. They were ruled a private forum by the 9th circuit court. So 230 doesn't apply here. Look it up.
-
@bonja, This isnt a matter of forcing a private company to do what we want. Heres the low down. Most websites are held accountable for what is published on their platform. So if I made a website and posted stuff about how hillary clinton raped a cat once or something I could be held accountable for slander or libel and potentially sued. This is obviously untenable for any social media company as any random idiot can say whatever he want about anything. Any social media company being held to this standard would fall appart in days for obvious reasons. So in the early 90s to allow these companies to exist without being raped to death by a conga line of legal lawsuits we implemented section 230. It gives protections to social media companies as long as they act as public platforms for free speech. But heres the catch they were allowed to have terms of service. Because if you wanted normal people to use the platform you might want to have it free from freaks spamming child pornography.
-
@bonja, Gore, rape threats etc. So they are allowed to ban people. My belief is that theyve crossed the line. They are clearly at this point acting as publishers with political motivations. They remove things they deem to be untrue and clearly act in partisan interest even up till the point of removing a sitting president from their site. As a result I do not believe they should be afforded the protections that come with being a free and open platform.
-
@CocoasBro, Well websites have to do something about people spreading lies and hate. If left unchecked they could provoke others to assault the Capitol building or something. I think inciting a riot would fall under the cp, gore, rape threats etc category.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, The book 1984 has some really good examples of why giving a single organization the power to determine for you what is and isnt true is a bad idea. Also no one person incited the "riot" at the capital building. Especially if your talking about trump who told them to go home at the end of his speech.
-
@CocoasBro, You mean like how the church does? For sure a bunch of people incited the riot. Trump, Gililiani, Mo Brooks, few others. They did a whole speech before hand.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, 1. What are you specifically talking about with "the church" Im an Athiest so I have no love for the church but your not making much sense here. 2. The speech specifically called for peace and people to go home. Sounds like you heard alot of mis-information and propaganda during the initial reporting of that day that was silently corrected months later. I dont know who Mo Brooks is or Gililani is but given the sheer amounts of fear mongering and misinformation that happend over the course of months about what happend during that protest I doubt they did anything either
-
@CocoasBro, I believe he is talking about the court cases leading up to the 6th. Leftists like to claim X amount of cases were lost due to lack of evidence but the majority of them never even made it into the evidentiary stage. They were shut down because the judges were scared and said they lacked standing. If anything provoked the riot it was the people who refused to look deeper and just kept repeating "Trumps baseless claims" for months beforehand.
-
@Mag3rPayne, X=all of them. Even the AZ audit didn’t find anything. Why would judges be scared, no one in the gov gets held accountable for anything.
-
@CocoasBro, 1. I was just making the connection between communism and religion. Since 1984 is about communism and you said never let a single organization determine what’s true or not. 2. I was talking specifically about the rally trump held before he sent everyone to the Capitol. Where Giuliani wanted “trial by combat” Cawthorn called the people spineless for not doing anything, Trump Jr. (who already called for war) wanted people to do something, among others. Pretty much vilifying everyone who want them. You can’t just rile up a crowd with hate and anger while telling them to “take back your country” then say “but be peaceful” and expect nothing to happen. That’s like slapping someone then saying jk don’t get mad.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, 1. Still very confused as to your point, but im assuming your talking about authoritarian religion has been in the past and I dont want to repeat it. 2. Thats exactly the propaganda Im talking about Trump didnt "send everyone to the capital" he specifically told everyone to go home. That quote from Giuliani sounds extremely out of context. Does that mean Hillary and the left were calling for violence when and revolution for saying Trumps victory wasnt legitimate? They said all the same things. People did die. Yet you dont hold them responsible. Also hate and anger is something you Asserted. It was a very peaceful protest the only people who got hurt where Trump supporters.
-
@Mag3rPayne, They get a 2 year FBI investigation because john podesta fell for a fisching scam but the democrates send the vote watchers home by telling them the voting stopped then continue counting and end up finding hundreds of thousands of votes for their candidate in key swing states that went to trump during his election and we get "baseless claims"
-
@CocoasBro, 1. Same. 2. Trump very much did send people to the capital. https://youtu.be/6quOC6McLZU “And after this we’re gonna walk down, and I’ll be there with you (he wasn’t) we’re gonna walk down to the capital and we’re gonna cheer on our brave congressmen and women…” I’d urge you find a video of the whole speech though. That was just a clip from BBC. The left never called for a revolution. Only that the Russians helped trump win. That’s what the muller report was about. And no one died from that. It was not a peaceful protest. Capitol police died. https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs These are just the facts.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, Ive watched it several times and dont remember that part. Youre gonna have to give me a time stamp because im not watching it all the way through again. That police officer did not die from Trump supporters he died from a heart attack later on that night thems just the facts. france24.com/en/americas/20210420-police-officer-in-capital-riot-died-from-natural-causes-says-coroner He didnt even die during the "riot" he died later at the station. That was fake news should CNN get banned from twitter because of that? Furthermore they very much did call for a revolution because of the Mueller report they litterally rioted for 6 months straight after Trumps election. People died during those riots and it was always a nothing burger their claim didnt even make sense with their accusation. Should that have been banned from social media? The accusation that Trump cheated? Why does this only go one way?
-
@MrTuxPenguin, Should George Floydes death have been censored after all the resulting riots cost millions in damages and people lost their homes, their buisnesses, people were beaten in the streets and several lost their lives one of which was burned to death. Should BLM and their supporters be taken off social media? It feels like this logic only goes one way for you.
-
@CocoasBro, So I linked you a video where he says that. It’s a YouTube vid. It’s a short one. Because one side has actual evidence. I’m sure the media played up that trump “hacked” and “stole” the election but it wasn’t and that’s what got people talked up. In reality, it was more of fake accounts spreading disinformation and pro trump comments in general. (Again that comes from the muller report where they back up their claims). With what’s happening now, There was an actual attempt (by trump; former president) to overturn a fair and free election. Hillary never sent people to the Capitol building. She never played the victim (Not like trump is). There was never this much discourse over such a blatant lie. That’s the difference.
-
@CocoasBro, Floyd’s death got almost no news attention. It was the people who blew up the story because the news doesn’t care about another dead black person. That’s addressing a real problem. (Racial issues) The “stolen election” is not real. Trump just lost. Fair and square.
-
@CocoasBro, And don’t get it twisted, I’m not trying to persuade you to become a democrat. They’re sht too. Neither party have either of our best interests as a concern. Trump isn’t looking out for you the same way Biden isn’t looking out for me. They may say they are but they don’t care. Most of the people in Congress don’t care. As a final statement, Don’t listen to the government, (that includes trump and other Republican officials) don’t listen to news. Go out and find the answers. Is racism a problem? Talk to some black people and believe them. Should we raise the minimum wage? Talk to an economist. They’re experts for a reason.
-
@MrTuxPenguin, Look I cant do this anymore dude. Sorry. Nothing you did just gotta deal with some stuff peace.
-
@CocoasBro, No worries. Sorry to hear. Best of luck to you. I hope things turn out well.
-
#trumpmemes
Public Platform ≠ Public/Private Publisher ≠ Private Platform. ‘Cannot have cake and eat it too.’ Interesting developments.