* * * SC2 Mafia Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : FUCK TWITTER!!! https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48060 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Auteur : Donald J. Trump Date : January 8th, 2021 05:08 PM Title : FUCK TWITTER!!! JACK "JACKASS" DORSEY IS A LOSER & A MAN WHO LIKES SEEING HIS WIFE WITH OTHER MEN, NAMELY AMERICAN HEROES LIKE MYSELF. HE WAS SUCH A LOSER THAT HE DECIDED TO PERMANENTLY BAN MY ACCOUNT OF OVER 90 MILLION FOLLOWERS (the amount of votes I would've gotten if the election wasn't STOLEN by JOE "WHO?" BIDEN and the DUMBOCRATS) TO SILENCE THE MAJORITY. BUT OUT OF MERCY, I SHALL DECIDE TO PEACEFULLY TRANSFER POWER BY INAUGURATION DAY. WE MUST & WILL RESPECT LAW ENFORCEMENT, AS GOOD AMERICANS DO. BUT THIS IS NOT OVER! WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Auteur : FrostByte Date : January 8th, 2021 07:30 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! It would be hilarious if you died before the inauguration. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : January 9th, 2021 02:08 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! It would be hilarious if you died before the inauguration. Or if he died while sneakily attending the inauguration he said he wouldn't attend to :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 9th, 2021 03:06 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Should we place bets on what happens? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Auteur : Frinckles Date : January 9th, 2021 12:08 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Should we place bets on what happens? it's already happening. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Auteur : Helz Date : January 11th, 2021 04:42 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Is it bad theres a part of me giggling like a little girl at Trump being censored? After pushing fraud so hard it tore the country apart and pardoning people guilty of mass murder and treason I hope he is as butthurt as the people he pardoned were in their 'federal pound me in the butt' penitentiary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 08:24 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! You can like or dislike Donald Trump, but I think it’s worrisome a tech company can just censor a head of state like this, without any court of law ordering them to do so. I think as a society, we have been so overwhelmed by the appearance of the Internet and social media, that we simply don’t know how to use it properly, and haven’t adapted to it yet. I’m curious what this’ll mean for tech giants in the coming years, seeing as multiple foreign politicians have attacked Twitter’s decision to ban Trump. https://news.yahoo.com/angela-merkel-believes-trump-permanent-213832660.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 08:28 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! You can like or dislike Donald Trump, but I think it’s worrisome a tech company can just censor a head of state like this, without any court of law ordering them to do so. I think as a society, we have been so overwhelmed by the appearance of the Internet and social media, that we simply don’t know how to use it properly, and haven’t adapted to it yet. I’m curious what this’ll mean for tech giants in the coming years, seeing as multiple foreign politicians have attacked Twitter’s decision to ban Trump. https://news.yahoo.com/angela-merkel-believes-trump-permanent-213832660.html He's not being censored. He can go talk to or call whomever he pleases anytime. People just aren't obligated to broadcast his bullshit. How to we square this circle with the crazy christian baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for gay people? Private enterprises are or are not allowed to do whatever they want? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 08:29 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! It is not a violation of his first amendment, it is in fact a violation of everyone elses' if they are being forced to broadcast bullshit like whatever Trump spews. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 08:51 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ Ayatollah Khamenei was not censored by Twitter when he made a post calling for the genocide of Israelis. Funnily enough when he started questioning the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine his post did get edited out. I think it’s a dangerous precedent for a social media platform to be able to moderate content and spin the story they want. It’s okay right now because Twitter is liberal and pro-Biden, but I’m wondering what’s going to happen once Twitter and the Democratic Party have a major disagreement. Will they censor them too? Only time will tell. Also, this has nothing to do with the freedom of a business to do what it wants, they are overstepping their boundaries and attempting to prevent a major political figure from taking to his supporters (and preventing a President from speaking to his country, which is even worse). In terms of them being free to do what tbey want, and somehow them ‘being forced to broadcast Trump’s bs’ being against their freedom, this would be akin to saying the City of Pittsburgh is having its freedom violated by letting Trump speak at a rally there. Like, what? Lol -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 09:24 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ Ayatollah Khamenei was not censored by Twitter when he made a post calling for the genocide of Israelis. Funnily enough when he started questioning the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine his post did get edited out. I think it’s a dangerous precedent for a social media platform to be able to moderate content and spin the story they want. It’s okay right now because Twitter is liberal and pro-Biden, but I’m wondering what’s going to happen once Twitter and the Democratic Party have a major disagreement. Will they censor them too? Only time will tell. Also, this has nothing to do with the freedom of a business to do what it wants, they are overstepping their boundaries and attempting to prevent a major political figure from taking to his supporters (and preventing a President from speaking to his country, which is even worse). In terms of them being free to do what tbey want, and somehow them ‘being forced to broadcast Trump’s bs’ being against their freedom, this would be akin to saying the City of Pittsburgh is having its freedom violated by letting Trump speak at a rally there. Like, what? Lol Trump can talk to his supporters, just not on twitter. They are a private business. If you don't have to bake for the gays why do you have to host server space for Trump? Because he is a politician? What did politicians do before twitter? Are you saying in 1980 politicians' were censored because Twitter didn't exist? Say it with me: kicking Trump off Twitter is NOT censorship. He isn't censored in any way shape or form. And your point on Pittsburgh, wrong, freedom of assembly is guaranteed. Forcing a private company to host Trump's bullshit, is not. I know I know it is hard to accept, considering the same people crying are the ones who would gladly do away with the civil rights act of 1964 and allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of skin color. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 09:25 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ Ayatollah Khamenei was not censored by Twitter when he made a post calling for the genocide of Israelis. Funnily enough when he started questioning the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine his post did get edited out. I think it’s a dangerous precedent for a social media platform to be able to moderate content and spin the story they want. It’s okay right now because Twitter is liberal and pro-Biden, but I’m wondering what’s going to happen once Twitter and the Democratic Party have a major disagreement. Will they censor them too? Only time will tell. Also, this has nothing to do with the freedom of a business to do what it wants, they are overstepping their boundaries and attempting to prevent a major political figure from taking to his supporters (and preventing a President from speaking to his country, which is even worse). In terms of them being free to do what tbey want, and somehow them ‘being forced to broadcast Trump’s bs’ being against their freedom, this would be akin to saying the City of Pittsburgh is having its freedom violated by letting Trump speak at a rally there. Like, what? Lol Yes it does. Twitter is a business, and a business should have the freedom to refuse service to any customer for any reason, should they not? Except for when it comes to discrimination of protected classes - a political affiliation is not, however, a protected class. Or do you disagree that businesses shouldn't be able to refuse service to any customer for any reason? Including establishing a terms of service and refusing service to customers that break that terms of service? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 09:37 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Censoring a head of state on social media is not a right a business has and it has nothing to do with ‘refusing service’ to a customer. Deleting and flagging posts is clearly picking a certain political camp and social media platforms are not supposed to have opinions of their own (they’re meant to be unbiased), anymore than the town square is. When they start telling you what’s right and what’s wrong they’re no longer a social media platform - they’re engaging in journalism. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 09:39 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Yes it does. Twitter is a business, and a business should have the freedom to refuse service to any customer for any reason, should they not? Except for when it comes to discrimination of protected classes - a political affiliation is not, however, a protected class. Or do you disagree that businesses shouldn't be able to refuse service to any customer for any reason? Including establishing a terms of service and refusing service to customers that break that terms of service? He isn't even refused for political affiliation. He is refused service for INCITING VIOLENCE. Plenty of republicants are still on Twitter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 09:40 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Censoring a head of state on social media is not a right a business has and it has nothing to do with ‘refusing service’ to a customer. Deleting and flagging posts is clearly picking a certain political camp and social media platforms are not supposed to have opinions of their own (they’re meant to be unbiased), anymore than the town square is. When they start telling you what’s right and what’s wrong they’re no longer a social media platform - they’re engaging in journalism. Source please :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 09:42 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Despite what you may think, social media companies are under no obligation to be a public square. The public square still exists, Trump can go down there and incite violence if he wants. Again, Twitter, Facebook, et. al. don't have to be party to Trump's fictitious, fradulent, and violent claims and calls for action anymore. They kept him up for years, through all of his bullshit, but he crossed a line and got the boot. What is so hard to understand? What did politicians do before twitter? Trump can do that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 09:44 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Here you go: inb4 NYT is fake news! Trump and Rudy called for Trial by Combat. It happened. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 09:48 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Censoring a head of state on social media is not a right a business has and it has nothing to do with ‘refusing service’ to a customer. Deleting and flagging posts is clearly picking a certain political camp and social media platforms are not supposed to have opinions of their own (they’re meant to be unbiased), anymore than the town square is. When they start telling you what’s right and what’s wrong they’re no longer a social media platform - they’re engaging in journalism. It is refusing service. Social media platforms are businesses that exist to make money by providing a service. Just because they don't charge you for the service they provide doesn't make that fact any different - they are providing you a service and making money off of it. The service they are providing you is a way for you to say things online and have those things reach your intended audience. So they are refusing that service to people they are as violating their terms of service, which is their right. The 1st amendment stops the government shutting down your free speech. That hasn't happened. Nobody's 1st amendment rights have been violated. Don't like that twitter is banning you and removing your content? Follow it's terms of service, or find another platform with different rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 12th, 2021 09:52 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Censoring a head of state on social media is not a right a business has Yes it is lol. You saying something or having your feelings hurt real bad doesn't your statement true. When they start telling you what’s right and what’s wrong they’re no longer a social media platform - they’re engaging in journalism. Ok and journalism is legal. What is your proposed solution to the problem you've found here? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 10:10 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Yes it is lol. You saying something or having your feelings hurt real bad doesn't your statement true. Ok and journalism is legal. What is your proposed solution to the problem you've found here? Twitter is affecting freedom of speech by doing this. It’s not just Trump that’s getting deplatformed and it’s not as if it’s even the first time ppl have gotten censored. Ppl have gotten censored before for speaking out against COVID (on YouTube, and now on Twitter as well, lately), and the message is clear to everyone - disagree with Twitter and Facebook and you’ll get your tweets removed, account banned, videos deleted from YouTube. The problem with FaceBook and Twitter engaging in journalism is that they have a high reaching influence; post something on Twitter and FB and pretty much the entire planet can see what you wrote. When you have such a monopoly on media channels as they do, you can do a lot of real damage by preventing ppl from speaking there. You’ve effectively cut off the person from a very important venue of communication. That is censorship and against freedom of speech. It isn’t protected by freedom of business, simply because of how pervasive these companies how and they can affect public opinion and essentially control a large part of the information available. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:14 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Twitter is affecting freedom of speech by doing this. It’s not just Trump that’s getting deplatformed and it’s not as if it’s even the first time ppl have gotten censored. Ppl have gotten censored before for speaking out against COVID (on YouTube, and now on Twitter as well, lately), and the message is clear to everyone - disagree with Twitter and Facebook and you’ll get your tweets removed, account banned, videos deleted from YouTube. The problem with FaceBook and Twitter engaging in journalism is that they have a high reaching influence; post something on Twitter and FB and pretty much the entire planet can see what you wrote. When you have such a monopoly on media channels as they do, you can do a lot of real damage by preventing ppl from speaking there. You’ve effectively cut off the person from a very important venue of communication. That is censorship and against freedom of speech. It isn’t protected by freedom of business, simply because of how pervasive these companies how and they can affect public opinion and essentially control a large part of the information available. They aren't affecting freedom of speech. They are affecting the distribution of said speech. Distribution that only exists due to the fact that they created said distribution. And as creators and owners of that distribution that they created as part of their business model to make money, they absolutely have the right to refuse the service of said distribution to anyone they choose (again, other than in cases of protected classes). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 10:16 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Affecting distribution of free speech IS affecting freedom of speech xD -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 10:16 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Twitter is affecting freedom of speech by doing this. It’s not just Trump that’s getting deplatformed and it’s not as if it’s even the first time ppl have gotten censored. Ppl have gotten censored before for speaking out against COVID (on YouTube, and now on Twitter as well, lately), and the message is clear to everyone - disagree with Twitter and Facebook and you’ll get your tweets removed, account banned, videos deleted from YouTube. The problem with FaceBook and Twitter engaging in journalism is that they have a high reaching influence; post something on Twitter and FB and pretty much the entire planet can see what you wrote. When you have such a monopoly on media channels as they do, you can do a lot of real damage by preventing ppl from speaking there. You’ve effectively cut off the person from a very important venue of communication. That is censorship and against freedom of speech. It isn’t protected by freedom of business, simply because of how pervasive these companies how and they can affect public opinion and essentially control a large part of the information available. We didn't have speech before twitter? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 10:17 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:17 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Imagine coming up with an idea, using that idea in your business model to make money and then being told you're not allowed to use that idea as you wish - being forced to use that idea as others are telling you to. Why are you only concerned for the rights of right wingers? Why are you not concerned for twitter's rights? Do you not believe that they have rights to their own product that they created? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 10:19 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act The same people lmfaoooo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:20 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Affecting distribution of free speech IS affecting freedom of speech xD It isn't. Unless it's the government doing it. The government does not have the right to shut down the distribution of free speech. The distribution business does have the right to refuse distribution of anything it doesn't want to distribute. That's the difference here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 12th, 2021 10:26 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Twitter is affecting freedom of speech by doing this. It’s not just Trump that’s getting deplatformed and it’s not as if it’s even the first time ppl have gotten censored. Ppl have gotten censored before for speaking out against COVID (on YouTube, and now on Twitter as well, lately), and the message is clear to everyone - disagree with Twitter and Facebook and you’ll get your tweets removed, account banned, videos deleted from YouTube. The problem with FaceBook and Twitter engaging in journalism is that they have a high reaching influence; post something on Twitter and FB and pretty much the entire planet can see what you wrote. When you have such a monopoly on media channels as they do, you can do a lot of real damage by preventing ppl from speaking there. You’ve effectively cut off the person from a very important venue of communication. That is censorship and against freedom of speech. It isn’t protected by freedom of business, simply because of how pervasive these companies how and they can affect public opinion and essentially control a large part of the information available. Why should Facebook and Twitter be forced to allow everyone to use their platform and resources? Should I be allowed to post my own articles and correspondences on https://www.whitehouse.gov/? I would like to, and it is affecting the influence of my speech if I'm not able to. I suppose if you have a megaphone that you're yelling political stuff into you should also be obligated to allow me to use it to yell my own political stuff into. Otherwise that is affecting my free speech since you have a better reach than me. What is your proposed solution to the situation? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:27 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! We didn't have speech before twitter? This is such an important point that conservatives love to completely gloss over. The perceived "free speech" twitter problem here only exists because twitter was innovative enough to create a platform that enabled people to spread what they want easier. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:28 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Twitter exists as a convenience. A luxury as you will. It isn't required in order to have free speech. But it makes spreading your free speech easier. Cutting out this luxury does not disable free speech. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:34 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Twitter exists as a convenience. A luxury as you will. It isn't required in order to have free speech. But it makes spreading your free speech easier. Cutting out this luxury does not disable free speech. You know, you can create an account for the site that you can use to argue all of this. Please stop using our account here. Thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 12th, 2021 10:42 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! You know, you can create an account for the site that you can use to argue all of this. Please stop using our account here. Thanks. Don't tell someone else what to do. That is suppressing their free speech. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:45 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Imagine you want to publish a book full of conspiracy theories. You go to different book publishers and they tell you that they don't want to publish your book and distribute your conspiracy theories. Are they now in trouble for suppressing free speech? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 10:48 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Imagine you want to publish a book full of conspiracy theories. You go to different book publishers and they tell you that they don't want to publish your book and distribute your conspiracy theories. Are they now in trouble for suppressing free speech? https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1347327743004995585 One of the traitors calls it an assault on the freedom of speech. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Auteur : Hybrid Richard Dawkins Date : January 12th, 2021 10:53 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1347327743004995585 One of the traitors calls it an assault on the freedom of speech. Imagine a world where you can self publish Or create your own social media site (and host it too) And nobody from the government can stop you Now imagine crying that you aren't allowed to strong arm a publisher into publishing you instead, or strong arm a social media site into letting you violate their terms of service -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 12:19 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Nobody is being strongarmed into publishing anything; that is like saying that me posting a post here attacking twitter is strongarming you into publishing my post. Twitter is not an editorial company; they do not run stories. It’s pretty clear to everyone that you posting something on Twitter isn’t Twitter’s opinion on the matter seeing as the site is a public communication service that millions of people use. But Twitter decided to against that by clearly picking sides and running their own interpretation of posts. They should be treated as an editorial firm, because there are laws and practices that editors must follow - e.g. Twitter could potentially be sued for libel over their constant deplatforming/defaming (along with facebook). Also, literally no idea what the people framing this as an issue of the right of businesses to do as they please are talking about - Twitter literally used the same argument as me to explain why they didn’t remove Khamenei’s posts. That his posts were the head of state talking to the populace and it was foreign policy ‘saber-rattling’ (even though calling for the destruction of Israel is foreign policy in the same way Khruschev (likely spelt that wrong) slamming his shoe against the table is) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 12:21 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act The same people lmfaoooo I’m not interested in feeding your paranoid delusions. Being against censorship doesn’t make you a fucking racist. Grow up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 12th, 2021 12:32 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ 27673 Literally the same thing. Except it doesn’t apply to Donald Trump, but it does apply to Ali Khamenei comparing Zionism to a virus like COVID. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 12th, 2021 12:43 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Yes but if you publish a post here then the owners of the site have the right to remove it for any reason whatsoever. Same as Twitter. Twitter is perhaps inconsistent with their moderation. They also have the right to do that. If they want to they can ban every single person off the platform except for Iranian diplomats and only censor them when they post stuff about COVID-19. That's their choice. You also have the right to not use Twitter. I certainly choose not to. You might want to make the same decision if Twitter doing things is making you upset. What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? What is your proposed solution to the situation? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 12:47 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I didn't have freezepeach until twitter came along. Wow the 21st century is amazing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 02:07 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png its so annying to see this image in every discussion about free speech -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 02:10 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! its so annying to see this image in every discussion about free speech I know, you would think people would see it once and understand. Guess not! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 02:13 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I understand that none of these platforms are breaking laws by kicking people off them. But the heart of the question is do you think if we had it so these companies were led by extreme racists/white supremecists. Lets say they kick off anyone who says anything bad about the police, the government, and only whites. Would you still have the stance of "These companies can do what they want". If u are fine with people getting kicked off because you don't give a shit about their speech, but care when they kick someone off for speech u agree with, then its not about "they have the right to do this!" its about "they are doing something i support because X speech is bad". These companies can do this. It is their right. We can criticize them for their actions and anti free speech principles they stand for. I think those who are for it should just admit they are against free speech as a principle instead of obfuscating that "THEY ARENT DOING ANYTHING IILLEGAL!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 02:16 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I understand that none of these platforms are breaking laws by kicking people off them. But the heart of the question is do you think if we had it so these companies were led by extreme racists/white supremecists. Lets say they kick off anyone who says anything bad about the police, the government, and only whites. Would you still have the stance of "These companies can do what they want". If u are fine with people getting kicked off because you don't give a shit about their speech, but care when they kick someone off for speech u agree with, then its not about "they have the right to do this!" its about "they are doing something i support because X speech is bad". These companies can do this. It is their right. We can criticize them for their actions and anti free speech principles they stand for. I think those who are for it should just admit they are against free speech as a principle instead of obfuscating that "THEY ARENT DOING ANYTHING IILLEGAL!" If they were lead by supremacists I wouldn't be on their platform. Kind of why I question if I should even have an account here. It is also why I'm not interested in a Parler or Gab account. Both of those cites censor the left quickly despite what they say and they are allowed to. If twitter wants to ban the libs then I would be fine with that. They are a business. I'll stand by that too. I won't cry about censorship. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 02:17 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! If they were lead by supremacists I wouldn't be on their platform. Kind of why I question if I should even have an account here. It is also why I'm not interested in a Parler or Gab account. Both of those cites censor the left quickly despite what they say and they are allowed to. If twitter wants to ban the libs then I would be fine with that. They are a business. I'll stand by that too. I won't cry about censorship. Can u link me to censorship on either Gab or Parler. I don't use either. Ive never heard this claim before. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 02:18 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Ya'll keep saying FREEZEPEACH but I don't think you have a damn clue what that even is. Free speech isn't the ability to say whatever the fuck you want on a social media platform. If you can't understand that then you are really lost and will continue to be utterly disappointed :thinking: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 02:18 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Ya'll keep saying FREEZEPEACH but I don't think you have a damn clue what that even is. Free speech isn't the ability to say whatever the fuck you want on a social media platform. If you can't understand that then you are really lost and will continue to be utterly disappointed :thinking: Are you talking about the law or the principle. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 02:19 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 02:20 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Are you talking about the law or the principle. Both! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 12th, 2021 02:20 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml I look forward to the cryptos here to scream censorship. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 02:24 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml Wow Parler. What shitty false advertising platform. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Auteur : Helz Date : January 12th, 2021 02:31 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Although I could give 2 fucks about someone shutting the orange man up I think this is just a symptom of a much deeper problem that has been going on for a very long time. In the reality model of realism we accept that objective reality exists outside of our understanding and we can only interact with objective reality through our senses. The larger issue is tech companies are able to control the information we use to make decisions and can therefor, manipulate the decisions we make. They have spent years perfecting this ability because its their main source of income- marketing. On the most basic level marketing is someone paying someone else to influence people to buy, vote, or believe what they want. If I were to google 'Travon Martin' I would be given access to information on that situation. But if Google chooses they can curve the kind of information I am given. On a basic level thats what large tech companies have been doing on a macro level. This is just the most blatant in a series of such actions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Auteur : Helz Date : January 12th, 2021 02:36 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I understand that none of these platforms are breaking laws by kicking people off them. But the heart of the question is do you think if we had it so these companies were led by extreme racists/white supremecists. Lets say they kick off anyone who says anything bad about the police, the government, and only whites. Would you still have the stance of "These companies can do what they want". If u are fine with people getting kicked off because you don't give a shit about their speech, but care when they kick someone off for speech u agree with, then its not about "they have the right to do this!" its about "they are doing something i support because X speech is bad". These companies can do this. It is their right. We can criticize them for their actions and anti free speech principles they stand for. I think those who are for it should just admit they are against free speech as a principle instead of obfuscating that "THEY ARENT DOING ANYTHING IILLEGAL!" I love this point. We always see people pushing 'freedom of speech and expression' until that freedom of speech is used for something they disagree with. People love to leverage the morality of such things when it is convenient but point out true protection of that belief structure requires protecting positions they personally want to silence and it puts them in a tough situation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 12th, 2021 02:40 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I understand that none of these platforms are breaking laws by kicking people off them. But the heart of the question is do you think if we had it so these companies were led by extreme racists/white supremecists. Lets say they kick off anyone who says anything bad about the police, the government, and only whites. Would you still have the stance of "These companies can do what they want". Yes. If u are fine with people getting kicked off because you don't give a shit about their speech, but care when they kick someone off for speech u agree with, then its not about "they have the right to do this!" its about "they are doing something i support because X speech is bad". These companies can do this. It is their right. We can criticize them for their actions and anti free speech principles they stand for. I think those who are for it should just admit they are against free speech as a principle instead of obfuscating that "THEY ARENT DOING ANYTHING IILLEGAL!" If an app/service/community kicks off people I agree with, to the point that it affects me or it becomes clear that they're pushing some sort of agenda, I stop using it. I have been in this situation before and my opinion has not changed. I might even complain, but I won't say that said bias should be illegal or be enforced against in any way. This guy in the thread who sounds a lot like Mag, but isn't because Mag would never do something like create an alt account, seems to only care about this issue to the extent that they're censoring conservatives, and in addition actually does want some form of legal action to be taken. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 12th, 2021 02:55 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Although I could give 2 fucks about someone shutting the orange man up I think this is just a symptom of a much deeper problem that has been going on for a very long time. In the reality model of realism we accept that objective reality exists outside of our understanding and we can only interact with objective reality through our senses. The larger issue is tech companies are able to control the information we use to make decisions and can therefor, manipulate the decisions we make. They have spent years perfecting this ability because its their main source of income- marketing. On the most basic level marketing is someone paying someone else to influence people to buy, vote, or believe what they want. If I were to google 'Travon Martin' I would be given access to information on that situation. But if Google chooses they can curve the kind of information I am given. On a basic level thats what large tech companies have been doing on a macro level. This is just the most blatant in a series of such actions. I agree with this, but I think people vastly overstate the importance of political opinions in this sort of "curving". These tech companies are chasing profit, they don't really have an agenda beyond that. The people calling the shots probably don't give a fuck what you think about Trayvon Martin. What they do care about is engagement and showing ads (remember that 85% of Google's revenue comes from ads, they're primarily an advertising company). If a certain political skew is conductive to having you go on Google more often, then they'll adjust towards that. Often not even as a conscious business decision; remember the role that machine learning plays into all of this. Also take into account personalization, what Google shows you absolutely does depend on the individual. There is another aspect, one that is political but in a different way, and that is in influencing legislation and gaining political power. Specifically look at changes/repealing of Section 230. Repealing Section 230 would be one of the worst things to happen to tech companies for their bottom line, since it would require them to spend much more time, money, and resources in content moderation and curation. When you look at things like the recent capitol rioting, which was largely incited by Trump's rhetoric on Twitter, you can imagine that Section 230 shields Twitter from any liability from that event, and that will draw negative attention from lawmakers on this particular legislature. Banning Trump on all these platforms could be their way of making lawmakers less antsy on nixing Section 230. When analyzing the actions of these types of companies, I find that things make a lot more sense and become less conspiratorial when you forget about them wanting to influence society and instead look at their actions from the perspective of them just wanting to make way more money. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 12th, 2021 02:58 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Btw, both Biden and Trump have stated that they want to repeal Section 230. I suspect that is why tech companies showed restraint in their actions against Trump until very recently. Though I don't know why Trump would have wanted to repeal it since it likely would have put even more pressure on Twitter to get rid of him. I suspect that it's because he's actually, contrary to popular belief, a fucking dumbass. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Auteur : Helz Date : January 12th, 2021 03:03 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I agree with this, but I think people vastly overstate the importance of political opinions in this sort of "curving". These tech companies are chasing profit, they don't really have an agenda beyond that. The people calling the shots probably don't give a fuck what you think about Trayvon Martin. What they do care about is engagement and showing ads (remember that 85% of Google's revenue comes from ads, they're primarily an advertising company). If a certain political skew is conductive to having you go on Google more often, then they'll adjust towards that. Often not even as a conscious business decision; remember the role that machine learning plays into all of this. Also take into account personalization, what Google shows you absolutely does depend on the individual. There is another aspect, one that is political but in a different way, and that is in influencing legislation and gaining political power. Specifically look at changes/repealing of Section 230. Repealing Section 230 would be one of the worst things to happen to tech companies for their bottom line, since it would require them to spend much more time, money, and resources in content moderation and curation. When you look at things like the recent capitol rioting, which was largely incited by Trump's rhetoric on Twitter, you can imagine that Section 230 shields Twitter from any liability from that event, and that will draw negative attention from lawmakers on this particular legislature. Banning Trump on all these platforms could be their way of making lawmakers less antsy on nixing Section 230. When analyzing the actions of these types of companies, I find that things make a lot more sense and become less conspiratorial when you forget about them wanting to influence society and instead look at their actions from the perspective of them just wanting to make way more money. I absolutely agree with you. I think the direction taken is not the result of an intelligent and organized 'group' but rather just a product of market conditions. I will also say censoring Trump feels pretty justified when he is directly inciting riots in an attempt to maintain power. I do still feel that the manipulation of how we access information is an extremely dangerous thing that could use a lot more focus. Tech companies basically control a large portion of how we interact with society and that power should be regulated by more than just market conditions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Auteur : rumox Date : January 12th, 2021 03:07 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Btw, both Biden and Trump have stated that they want to repeal Section 230. I suspect that is why tech companies showed restraint in their actions against Trump until very recently. Though I don't know why Trump would have wanted to repeal it since it likely would have put even more pressure on Twitter to get rid of him. I suspect that it's because he's actually, contrary to popular belief, a fucking dumbass. Accelerate it while he is still in the limelight -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 12th, 2021 03:28 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Make a public version of Facebook/Twitter. Like they make railway companys public. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Auteur : yzb25 Date : January 12th, 2021 03:48 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I absolutely agree with you. I think the direction taken is not the result of an intelligent and organized 'group' but rather just a product of market conditions. I will also say censoring Trump feels pretty justified when he is directly inciting riots in an attempt to maintain power. I do still feel that the manipulation of how we access information is an extremely dangerous thing that could use a lot more focus. Tech companies basically control a large portion of how we interact with society and that power should be regulated by more than just market conditions. I agree with this. This specific example of censorship is less important, but these companies have vast power over how many ppl consume information, even if we abstain from these shitty sites ourselves. They need to be regulated and their ability to "personalize" information should be revised. That said, I'm not sure how legislation regulating machine learning would even look, honestly. Make a public version of Facebook/Twitter. Like they make railway companys public. Rumox brought this up before. It's an interesting idea, but I think in practice it has risks. It's not clear how this would be managed on an international level, too. Would each country make its own social media? Would there be some kind of international platform managed by the UN? I can imagine strengths and weaknesses with both. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Auteur : rumox Date : January 12th, 2021 03:53 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! On one hand I fully support a company refusing entry to people they do not wish to do business with, but on another the immense power social media makes me skeptical about their implementation of this. It is quite the dilemma. I'm also really curious how a public version of social media would actually be implemented. Which jurisdiction takes precedence on an international platform? How will laws be enforced? It's actually illegal here to to swear in a public space, so how would that go in online? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 03:57 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Btw, both Biden and Trump have stated that they want to repeal Section 230. I suspect that is why tech companies showed restraint in their actions against Trump until very recently. Though I don't know why Trump would have wanted to repeal it since it likely would have put even more pressure on Twitter to get rid of him. I suspect that it's because he's actually, contrary to popular belief, a fucking dumbass. Not only trump and biden. The big tech companies are fine with revisions and new regulation. They will be the ones deciding the regulations btw for those who think "we need more regulations on these tech giants!" for those screeching that 230 is bad. The replacement is going to be hell of a lot worse with both tech, both sides of aisle supporting it (who btw have no clue how any of this works because almost all politicians are boomers who can barely work a damn computer). What we will get is regulation favoring the tech giants, it will be harder for new competitors to enter the arena as it already is. See actions forcing parler off the internet when these companies coordinaate and decide "we don't want you here". internet is only gonna get worse lol. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 04:04 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Yes. If an app/service/community kicks off people I agree with, to the point that it affects me or it becomes clear that they're pushing some sort of agenda, I stop using it. I have been in this situation before and my opinion has not changed. I might even complain, but I won't say that said bias should be illegal or be enforced against in any way. This guy in the thread who sounds a lot like Mag, but isn't because Mag would never do something like create an alt account, seems to only care about this issue to the extent that they're censoring conservatives, and in addition actually does want some form of legal action to be taken. I wonder if your stance will change once someone is completely exiled from ability to engage in business because tech giants decide "we don't like what you say". Like not saying it has happened now. But lets say banks, payment processors, etc decide "you can't use our service". At what point is that going to be unacceptable? If i can't use a bank, can't transact (as far as im aware cryptocurrency exchanges are completely controlled by Mastercard? Someone correct me if i am dumb on that). Do we just create a separate economy for the social outcasts? I genuinely want to know cause i don't know the line between "businesses are free to associate with whoever they want" and all these companies getting together saying "we will not give you access to the basic tools you need to live in this world". I lean more on the side of forcing companies to do business with X is oppressive -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Auteur : yzb25 Date : January 12th, 2021 04:18 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! If i can't use a bank, can't transact (as far as im aware cryptocurrency exchanges are completely controlled by Mastercard? Someone correct me if i am dumb on that). Not that it detracts much from your point but, afaik, bitcoin transactions are handled by a very secure system called "blockchain" where lots and lots of unrelated ppl (10s of thousands maybe, idk) are effectively processing the transactions in return for a small reward, instead of any central bank or authority. That's what ppl mean by "mining for bitcoins". No external system is required apart from for stuff like currency conversion. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 04:24 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Not that it detracts much from your point but, afaik, bitcoin transactions are handled by a very secure system called "blockchain" where lots and lots of unrelated ppl (10s of thousands maybe, idk) are effectively processing the transactions in return for a small reward, instead of any central bank or authority. That's what ppl mean by "mining for bitcoins". No external system is required apart from for stuff like currency conversion. No, i am talking about companies own the exchanges where u can trade bitcoins for other currency. So while u can transact in bitcoin or w/e, you can't gain access to say USD and only exchange again with people using more crypto -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Auteur : Firebringer Date : January 12th, 2021 04:25 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! And you can't exactly ask an employer to give you money in crypto only because the banks have denied u service. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Auteur : Helz Date : January 12th, 2021 04:26 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Make a public version of Facebook/Twitter. Like they make railway companys public. Thats just a Europe thing. Its also the major reason (From my limited understanding) that American train transportation is such an inefficient mess. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Auteur : Helz Date : January 12th, 2021 04:31 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Not only trump and biden. The big tech companies are fine with revisions and new regulation. They will be the ones deciding the regulations btw for those who think "we need more regulations on these tech giants!" for those screeching that 230 is bad. The replacement is going to be hell of a lot worse with both tech, both sides of aisle supporting it (who btw have no clue how any of this works because almost all politicians are boomers who can barely work a damn computer). What we will get is regulation favoring the tech giants, it will be harder for new competitors to enter the arena as it already is. See actions forcing parler off the internet when these companies coordinaate and decide "we don't want you here". internet is only gonna get worse lol. The net neutrality that got crammed down our throats took a big step in that direction. Now ISP's can throttle bandwidth. Although they are currently only targeting platforms like Youtube, Netflix, and Twitch I doubt it will be long before they set up a framework to monetize company's ability to enter internet markets. It will likely trend towards consolidation of the internet in general. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Auteur : Exeter350 Date : January 13th, 2021 06:10 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! business should have the freedom to refuse service to any customer for any reason Except for when it comes to discrimination of protected classes - a political affiliation is not, however, a protected class. :bigthonk: Refusing to serve blacks is discriminatory, but refusing to serve orange is socially acceptable. DOUBLE STANDARDS. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : January 13th, 2021 06:15 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Make a public version of Facebook/Twitter. Like they make railway companys public. Oh no, SJ... you're suggesting to NATIONALIZE sectors? you're a communist. We have to terminate you immediatly in the name of the Free American People. I somewhat agree with you, as long as other platforms remain alternatives and not controlled by the state. It's a very touchy topic, because the state controlling what is now a big part of free speech is dangerous, but it could be interesting to experiment. On the other hand, I wouldn't want this to happen in my country because I'd fear for democracy, so idk... Can you experiment this at home? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 13th, 2021 08:34 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! You can't really do anything about social media until you have sorted out lobbying. The only reason politicians might do something because its completely unfair for social media to have that such of an impact on politics without having to legally bribe politicians first! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 13th, 2021 07:27 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I think it should be nationalized. There are clear restrictions on censorship coming from the government but none on companies engaging in censorship. IMO rhe government can at least be trusted not to blatantly censor ppl for arbitrary reasons, but the issue of if they can be trusted with the flow of information is a differrnt matter. Would I trust them with managing Google? Probably not. That kind of power in the hands of the government is insane. If this is not illegal, then it should be. It’s unacceptable for a private company to censor ppl for political disagreement + to frame it as them somehow breaking Twitter terms. If Twitter were marketed as a social media site for liberals and conservative opinions were banned this wouldn’t be an issue, but they are. Secondly, censoring a head of state is even worse. Remember that the ppl I mentioned who spoke out against what Twitter is doing - like Merkel - aren’t Trump allies by any stretch of the imagination. I think they’re worried it may happen to them too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 13th, 2021 07:31 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I wonder if your stance will change once someone is completely exiled from ability to engage in business because tech giants decide "we don't like what you say". Like not saying it has happened now. But lets say banks, payment processors, etc decide "you can't use our service". At what point is that going to be unacceptable? If i can't use a bank, can't transact (as far as im aware cryptocurrency exchanges are completely controlled by Mastercard? Someone correct me if i am dumb on that). Do we just create a separate economy for the social outcasts? I genuinely want to know cause i don't know the line between "businesses are free to associate with whoever they want" and all these companies getting together saying "we will not give you access to the basic tools you need to live in this world". I lean more on the side of forcing companies to do business with X is oppressive It’s hard for me to have an opinion on the matter seeing as what you’re describing has not occurred yet. If it were as pervasive as media censorship it could be a very real problem. Like if banks start using arbitrary reasons to freeze your account... that is something thay needs looking at. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 13th, 2021 07:49 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I think it should be nationalized. There are clear restrictions on censorship coming from the government but none on companies engaging in censorship. IMO rhe government can at least be trusted not to blatantly censor ppl for arbitrary reasons, but the issue of if they can be trusted with the flow of information is a differrnt matter. Would I trust them with managing Google? Probably not. That kind of power in the hands of the government is insane. If this is not illegal, then it should be. It’s unacceptable for a private company to censor ppl for political disagreement + to frame it as them somehow breaking Twitter terms. If Twitter were marketed as a social media site for liberals and conservative opinions were banned this wouldn’t be an issue, but they are. Secondly, censoring a head of state is even worse. Remember that the ppl I mentioned who spoke out against what Twitter is doing - like Merkel - aren’t Trump allies by any stretch of the imagination. I think they’re worried it may happen to them too. What about newspapers? Do you suggest something similar to how the BBC functions? What to stop whichever party is in power with controling it when nationalised? .The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms This is what you ment when referring to Merkal? That to me sounds more like she is blaming lack of laws to censor freedom of speech instead of the business having to do it. That is not in trump's favours and, if anything, would most likely censor him more/earlier. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 13th, 2021 07:54 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Laws. The government cannot restrict freedom of speech other than in some specific circumstances. If it was the Government and not Twitter doing this I believe they would be getting sued or attacked by the Supreme Court non-stop. There have been lawsuits leveled at twitter’s feet anyways over censorship but Section 230 protects them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 13th, 2021 07:55 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Not familiar with how the BBC works unfortunately. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 13th, 2021 08:05 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Laws. The government cannot restrict freedom of speech other than in some specific circumstances. If it was the Government and not Twitter doing this I believe they would be getting sued or attacked by the Supreme Court non-stop. There have been lawsuits leveled at twitter’s feet anyways over censorship but Section 230 protects them. But then you still have the issue of people spreading harmful and dangerous lies and messages? What would stop that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 13th, 2021 08:17 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Not familiar with how the BBC works unfortunately. Sorta public funded. It's complicated. But basically they have to try and equally but because their dependent on keeping their funding they tend to lean towards whatever government is currently in power. Sorta shit still But at least it's not the newspapers. Because, would you believe it . The newspapers (vast majority} that are all owned by billionaires that don't even live in the country all lean conservative, the company that cares most about billionaires and least about the country. (Surprise Pikachu face) Yes the public ones lean labour. And then you wonder why the UK is fucking itself over. Because the majority of plonkers that are gormless gits read whatever shit twisted dodgy stories rammed down theirs fat gobs and never look beyond the headlines. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 13th, 2021 08:53 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Laws. The government cannot restrict freedom of speech other than in some specific circumstances. If it was the Government and not Twitter doing this I believe they would be getting sued or attacked by the Supreme Court non-stop. There have been lawsuits leveled at twitter’s feet anyways over censorship but Section 230 protects them. 1. Supreme Court doesn't sue anyone. 2. This is exactly what everyone has been saying. Freezepeach doesn't apply to Twitter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 13th, 2021 09:09 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! 1. Well aware. 2. No, but it should :P It’s not entirely clear if what twitter is doing is legal, it depends on various things such as your interpretation of Section 230 and on whether Trump violated the Twitter rules of conduct; the way Parler got immediately shut down by Amazon, its possible antitrust laws were violated. Especially seeing as Parler was gaining users and ppl were joining after Trump got banned. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Auteur : rumox Date : January 13th, 2021 11:52 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Companies find out they are being used as a platform to incite violence. Companies revoke services to those doing this (Parler) Where does Antitrust come in this? If Parler want's to be a platform where anyone can say anything they have to be self reliant because no other company will want to be associated with that shit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 01:31 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Grayswandir Sill waiting a response on Merkal and Newspapers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Auteur : Oberon Date : January 14th, 2021 01:49 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Could you please rephrase? I'm not sure I understand your question -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 01:57 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Could you please rephrase? I'm not sure I understand your question You mentioned something Merkal said that supported your ideals, wanted to find out what it was and if I had the correct quote. And if you wanted to control social media, would newspapers need the same treatment? Since they are perhaps the extreme of one sided views and censorship, along with tv news channels and their websites. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 02:13 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Oh yeh. About Merkel. I agree with her that private companies shouldn’t be the ones to decide if a public figure is to talk to the populace or not (it should be the government, courts of law, ect). Otherwise, you can have a really rich person with their own agenda controlling political communication (and obviously also making politicians who don’t want to be censored sing their tune - whatever that happens to be). Imagine if Murdoch was the one who owned Twitter and was censoring Biden for *insert reason here*. When maybe he didn’t do that, and even if he did its not Murdochs call to decide if Biden gets to talk to people. Now that I put it in those terms I’m honestly surprised this is legal at all. Can we call this insurrection, mutiny? I think the proper term is sedition, but yeah. Newspapers dont really have the same influenxe they used to have, the main issue would be if newspapers were going out of their way to paint a certain candidate in a certain manner. Technically laws already exist against libel, although with public figures theyre seldom applied. There is an issue with newspapers being sensationalist, and that’s existed since time immemorial. Although I suspect its gotten worse recently. Its hard to tell bc I dont read newspapers so I dont know how biased they can really get. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 02:34 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I mean what you say about Murdochs already happens. And a vast majority of adults still pay attention to the newspapers. I may of allowed you to use the smallest example as a point, what I was mostly refering was media, so newspapers/TV/Online News. I just said newspapers to try and make it more simple. There is a free allowance of censorship and selective viewpoints controlled by humongous companies controlled by either one or few billionaires. Why is it fare to target social media and not these others? And no, you can't do that with Merkal. You cant cut her opinion in half, throw away the part you don't want to hear and then use the other half to push your point across. Please comment on this further. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Auteur : rumox Date : January 14th, 2021 03:52 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Murdoch owned newspapers was the deciding factor in recent political power changes here https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/20/very-australian-coup-murdoch-turnbull-political-death-news-corps The younger generation may not use them, but they are still a very powerful tool to target everyone else with. Newspapers owned by Murdoch in Australia: The Australian (Nationwide) Community Media Group (16 QLD & NSW suburban/regional titles) Cumberland-Courier Newspapers (23 suburban/commuter titles) The Courier-Mail (Queensland) The Sunday Mail (Queensland) The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland) The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland) The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland) The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales) The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales) Herald Sun (Victoria) Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria) The Weekly Times (Victoria) Leader Newspapers (33 suburban Melbourne titles) MX (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane CBD) The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria) The Advertiser (South Australia) The Sunday Mail (South Australia) Messenger Newspapers (11 suburban Adelaide, SA titles) The Sunday Times (Western Australia) The Mercury (Tasmania) Quest Newspapers (19 suburban Brisbane, QLD titles) The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania) Northern Territory News (Northern Territory) The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory) The Tablelands Advertiser (Atherton Tablelands and the Far North, Queensland) All of them easily in the top selling category of papers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 05:03 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Murdoch owned newspapers was the deciding factor in recent political power changes here https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/20/very-australian-coup-murdoch-turnbull-political-death-news-corps The younger generation may not use them, but they are still a very powerful tool to target everyone else with. Newspapers owned by Murdoch in Australia: The Australian (Nationwide) Community Media Group (16 QLD & NSW suburban/regional titles) Cumberland-Courier Newspapers (23 suburban/commuter titles) The Courier-Mail (Queensland) The Sunday Mail (Queensland) The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland) The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland) The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland) The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales) The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales) Herald Sun (Victoria) Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria) The Weekly Times (Victoria) Leader Newspapers (33 suburban Melbourne titles) MX (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane CBD) The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria) The Advertiser (South Australia) The Sunday Mail (South Australia) Messenger Newspapers (11 suburban Adelaide, SA titles) The Sunday Times (Western Australia) The Mercury (Tasmania) Quest Newspapers (19 suburban Brisbane, QLD titles) The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania) Northern Territory News (Northern Territory) The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory) The Tablelands Advertiser (Atherton Tablelands and the Far North, Queensland) All of them easily in the top selling category of papers. And you use the term papers but that isn't the full extent. Firstly you have every grocery retailer advertising their newspapers either with POS signage or/and main foot traffic areas with their front page aggressive putting forward the most eye-catching memorable headlines so even if you don't buy one, your still being their information. You have sets of "free" papers in various locations, we tend to have them on trains, free to take from shops, inside of waiting rooms and inside of staff areas and canteens. You then have all these newspapers online, infiltrating every social media and many other webpages trying to get you onto their site. You then have the broadcasted ones, from the many news channels or giant empires like Sky and Fox which they also use to push their personal goals. So yeh. Sure the younger Generation don't buy or read physical newspapers, but they are certainly easily targeted and also totally vulnerable. We just use the term newspapers for ease. And you can't agree with (or accept it at a cost) these media Monguls and be fine with how much control they have yet get unequally upset when social media does something which upsets you. That's just hypocritical. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 14th, 2021 05:57 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I think it should be nationalized. There are clear restrictions on censorship coming from the government but none on companies engaging in censorship. IMO rhe government can at least be trusted not to blatantly censor ppl for arbitrary reasons, but the issue of if they can be trusted with the flow of information is a differrnt matter. Would I trust them with managing Google? Probably not. That kind of power in the hands of the government is insane. If this is not illegal, then it should be. It’s unacceptable for a private company to censor ppl for political disagreement + to frame it as them somehow breaking Twitter terms. If Twitter were marketed as a social media site for liberals and conservative opinions were banned this wouldn’t be an issue, but they are. Secondly, censoring a head of state is even worse. Remember that the ppl I mentioned who spoke out against what Twitter is doing - like Merkel - aren’t Trump allies by any stretch of the imagination. I think they’re worried it may happen to them too. That's kinda socialist but cool. If Twitter is nationalized, what happens when inevitably people start spamming random shit like gore, porn, and generally derailing any conversations by spamming advertisements and whatnot? What happens when some private company decides to create their own Twitter, then that private company's product becomes more successful than the government's Twitter? Do you realize that freedom of press is also a component of the first amendment? Why do you think that things would be different if Twitter was considered some sort of publisher or journalism company rather than social media? Do you think that newspapers and media sites should also be obligated to entertain bipartisan opinions, as opposed to the current situation where media is entirely at their discretion on whether or not to publish editorials from a given person? What conservative opinions are being banned from Twitter? Be specific, please, are they banning the discussion of lowering tax rates or deregularizing industries? Why are you complaining about Twitter, but you didn't complain about Parler when they billed themselves as a free-speech social network (something that Twitter does not claim to be, by the way) and then went and banned leftists and liberals? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 06:20 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I hear an echo. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 08:05 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! You’re actually flat out wrong there. Twitter does claim to be for free speech and until around 2016 this was true but then they changed their Terms & Policies, and they reserved the right for any reason, including none (and potentially for their sexual orientation/religion/skin colour/etc), to ban posts and accounts. Their claim was actually part of a lawsuit leveled at them in 2018, as two users got banned when they respected Twitter’s (terms) at the time that they made their accounts - and were banned with the supposed reason that they were linked to groups who incited violence (nobody named the group they were affiliated with and they in fact did not promote violence themselves either - not even off Twitter). The judge who presided over the case wanted to find them guilty, but was ordered by a higher court to reverse his decision, and the lawsuit ended there, for a couple of reasons. First, if it had been appealed, it would’ve reached the same chair who overruled the judge, and second, it would’ve set a legal precedent had their appeal been denied. Also, because Twitter could them be liable for damage for deciding which tweets get deleted. I find it amazing how the people using freedom of business as an argument are the same people who believe the rich are evil and believe in more regulation. Apparently freedom of business is nice when it suits you xD. It’s fine now because Trump is the one getting hit, but I’m curious how some of you will react when Twitter and Facebook start attacking something or someone you believe in. Will you still hide behind this argument, or will u finally realize there’s a problem? European leaders did the latter, because they’re genuinely afraid it could happen to them as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 14th, 2021 08:10 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! You’re actually flat out wrong there. Twitter does claim to be for free speech and until around 2016 this was true but then they changed their Terms & Policies, and they reserved the right for any reason, including none (and potentially for their sexual orientation/religion/skin colour/etc), to ban posts and accounts. Their claim was actually part of a lawsuit leveled at them in 2018, as two users got banned when they respected Twitter’s (terms) at the time that they made their accounts - and were banned with the supposed reason that they were linked to groups who incited violence (nobody named the group they were affiliated with and they in fact did not promote violence themselves either - not even off Twitter). The judge who presided over the case wanted to find them guilty, but was ordered by a higher court to reverse his decision, and the lawsuit ended there, for a couple of reasons. First, if it had been appealed, it would’ve reached the same chair who overruled the judge, and second, it would’ve set a legal precedent had their appeal been denied. Also, because Twitter could them be liable for damage for deciding which tweets get deleted. I find it amazing how the people using freedom of business as an argument are the same people who believe the rich are evil and believe in more regulation. Apparently freedom of business is nice when it suits you xD. It’s fine now because Trump is the one getting hit, but I’m curious how some of you will react when Twitter and Facebook start attacking something or someone you believe in. Will you still hide behind this argument, or will u finally realize there’s a problem? European leaders did the latter, because they’re genuinely afraid it could happen to them as well. I'm not really worried because I'm not a white supremacist. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 08:16 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! 1. Influence isnt the problem. People one-siding ISNT the problem, because newspapers cant prevent major government leaders or like, anyone, from talking to their supporters, or from the ppl in general; dont like a candidate? Too bad. He’ll just go to this here newspaper that will publish what he says. But Twitter, Facebook, Youtube arent the same thing: these companies practically control the Internet, they control the flow of information, what you get to see and what you to get to hear. Cutting off a head of state from the ppl isnt a decision they should be able to take. That should be up to governments and courts of law to decide, not them. This isnt even that hard to understand; imagine if Twitter was conservative leaning and started to ban ppl saying the election was fair and maybe banning ppl like Biden/Harris/Sanders for idk sedition (lol some ppl could definitely be banned for sedition). I see ppl attacking me for caring about conservatives getting censored, and, yeah? What the hell is the problem with that? xD -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 08:19 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Funny thing is, it’s actually the government’s fault for the mess we are in. Section 230 is practically a government sanctioned monopoly. If it hadn’t existed many of these companies would’ve gotten sued into oblivion. An even more pressing problem are Google and Amazon. Sure if you get banned from Twitter you can just go to Parler, but what happens once Amazon decides to take Parler off the Internet? And what happens once Google’s algorithm decides to make it very hard for you to find information it doesn’t like? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 14th, 2021 08:53 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Could you stop strawmanning my point and answer at least a couple of my questions? Thanks. I'm particularly curious about what conservative viewpoints I can get banned for on Twitter. Will I get banned for saying that social services should receive less funding? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 14th, 2021 09:04 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Funny thing is, it’s actually the government’s fault for the mess we are in. Section 230 is practically a government sanctioned monopoly. If it hadn’t existed many of these companies would’ve gotten sued into oblivion. An even more pressing problem are Google and Amazon. Sure if you get banned from Twitter you can just go to Parler, but what happens once Amazon decides to take Parler off the Internet? And what happens once Google’s algorithm decides to make it very hard for you to find information it doesn’t like? https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/14/pirate_bay_cofounder_criticises_parler/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Auteur : S-FM Magoroth Date : January 14th, 2021 09:15 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! This guy in the thread who sounds a lot like Mag, but isn't because Mag would never do something like create an alt account, seems to only care about this issue to the extent that they're censoring conservatives, and in addition actually does want some form of legal action to be taken. You raaaang? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Auteur : FrostByte Date : January 14th, 2021 09:58 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Affecting distribution of free speech IS affecting freedom of speech xD Your first amendment rights dissipate the second you incite violence. There is no freedom of speech on shit like that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Auteur : FrostByte Date : January 14th, 2021 10:01 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Funny thing is, it’s actually the government’s fault for the mess we are in. Section 230 is practically a government sanctioned monopoly. If it hadn’t existed many of these companies would’ve gotten sued into oblivion. An even more pressing problem are Google and Amazon. Sure if you get banned from Twitter you can just go to Parler, but what happens once Amazon decides to take Parler off the Internet? And what happens once Google’s algorithm decides to make it very hard for you to find information it doesn’t like? Create Parler 2.0 and moderate it. Creating a safe space to commit violence is a no no, though. Peoples' lives are at stake. Or do you like giving a platform to people to plan things where police end up dying? Google already does that. I gotta use duckduckgo to find torrents sometimes. Use a different search engine. Capitalism, free market and all that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 10:32 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Did you reply to me Grayswandir ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 10:43 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Could you stop strawmanning my point and answer at least a couple of my questions? Thanks. I'm particularly curious about what conservative viewpoints I can get banned for on Twitter. Will I get banned for saying that social services should receive less funding? I don’t know, why don’t you try and see for yourself? Who the fuck am I strawmanning for fuck’s sake? Lol -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 10:44 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Your first amendment rights dissipate the second you incite violence. There is no freedom of speech on shit like that. Sure. But it should be the law who decides that, not Twitter. I’m not saying that there aren’t reasonable restrictions on free speech, just that Twitter shouldn’t be the one calling the shots. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 10:46 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Create Parler 2.0 and moderate it. Creating a safe space to commit violence is a no no, though. Peoples' lives are at stake. Or do you like giving a platform to people to plan things where police end up dying? Google already does that. I gotta use duckduckgo to find torrents sometimes. Use a different search engine. Capitalism, free market and all that. I also use DuckDuckGo :) been using it for over 3 years. It’s slower than Google but the results are noticeably different. Not necessarily less or more biased, just different. The one thing that sucks about it is image search, which is pretty bad on DDG compared to Google. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 10:47 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Did you reply to me @Grayswandir (https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/member.php?u=45751) ? I didn’t even understand your question so no What is the part of Merkel’s answer that I’m ignoring? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 14th, 2021 11:03 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! "We will never give up we will never concede" "We will never take our country back with weakness" Wut did he mean by dis -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 14th, 2021 11:05 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! "Trial by combat!!!!!!!!!" https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_720,w_1280,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1609950104/us-senate_oo808v Wut did he mean by dis -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 14th, 2021 11:06 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2021/01/boebert-1776.jpg Wut did she mean by dis -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 14th, 2021 11:27 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I don’t know, why don’t you try and see for yourself? Who the fuck am I strawmanning for fuck’s sake? Lol "Conservative opinions are being banned on Twitter" "What conservative opinions?" "I don't know" What problem do you have with Twitter, again? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 14th, 2021 11:50 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Dude if you cant admit Twitter has an anti-conservative bias you’ve either been living under a rock for the past century or are just plain stupid. In your case I think its the latter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 12:10 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! "Trial by combat!!!!!!!!!" https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_720,w_1280,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1609950104/us-senate_oo808v Wut did he mean by dis Why the fuck is there a cheap knock off of Doctor Who lurking around? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 14th, 2021 12:11 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Not sure why you're resorting to ad-hom attacks here, my dude. I'm trying to ask you very directly what kind of conservative opinions will get one banned on Twitter because I want to understand your position. Can you not answer that? Surely, if there's an anti-conservative bias, you can give examples of the type of stuff people have been getting banned for on Twitter that you think are unacceptable because they are legitimate conservative opinions and viewpoints. Why aren't you able to do that? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : January 14th, 2021 12:12 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-czW-11Q_MnM/VSeQLp1237I/AAAAAAAAAhk/JyNrJm_1vs0/s1600/post-43624-I-demand-a-trial-by-combat-Sj2A.gif -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : January 14th, 2021 12:19 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I'd kindly like to point out that this: JACK "JACKASS" DORSEY IS A LOSER & A MAN WHO LIKES SEEING HIS WIFE WITH OTHER MEN, NAMELY AMERICAN HEROES LIKE MYSELF. HE WAS SUCH A LOSER THAT HE DECIDED TO PERMANENTLY BAN MY ACCOUNT OF OVER 90 MILLION FOLLOWERS (the amount of votes I would've gotten if the election wasn't STOLEN by JOE "WHO?" BIDEN and the DUMBOCRATS) TO SILENCE THE MAJORITY. BUT OUT OF MERCY, I SHALL DECIDE TO PEACEFULLY TRANSFER POWER BY INAUGURATION DAY. WE MUST & WILL RESPECT LAW ENFORCEMENT, AS GOOD AMERICANS DO. BUT THIS IS NOT OVER! WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! is the cause of this thread, so let's not get carried away from the fun, gentlemen. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 114] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 14th, 2021 12:23 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I didn’t even understand your question so no What is the part of Merkel’s answer that I’m ignoring? Firstly, you mentioned Merkel with lack of quotes or link so I engaged and quoted what I think you may of been referring too and asked to clarify it. .The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms This is what you ment when referring to Merkal? That to me sounds more like she is blaming lack of laws to censor freedom of speech instead of the business having to do it. That is not in trump's favours and, if anything, would most likely censor him more/earlier. This was Ignored, or answered with a reply that has a vague relation but in no way easily noticeable as a reply. So I nudged you. Grayswandir Sill waiting a response on Merkal and Newspapers. So you want me to bring it up again Could you please rephrase? I'm not sure I understand your question Which I did You mentioned something Merkal said that supported your ideals, wanted to find out what it was and if I had the correct quote. And if you wanted to control social media, would newspapers need the same treatment? Since they are perhaps the extreme of one sided views and censorship, along with tv news channels and their websites. You finally comment, don't really clarify we are talking about the same quote, and only agree on the select part where Merkel says private companies should be the ones to decide and ignore the part where she said its because there should be laws in place that restrict free speech so that private companies don't have to make that decision. (It would be like me saying "We should save lives by killing 95% of the population" and you then use it by saying "I agree with SJ we should save lives") Then you select Murdoch as an example of what would happen if a rich person controlled the distribution of information. But this already happens and Murdoch already does this and it heavily influences politics. And then you claim newspapers don't matter and they don't go out there way to paint a certain candidate (Which has been and still is easily disprovable) followed by you claiming you don't even know if they do or not. Which is a horrible way to make your point "X is true about Y, but you can't blame me if I'm wrong because I don't know" Oh yeh. About Merkel. I agree with her that private companies shouldn’t be the ones to decide if a public figure is to talk to the populace or not (it should be the government, courts of law, ect). Otherwise, you can have a really rich person with their own agenda controlling political communication (and obviously also making politicians who don’t want to be censored sing their tune - whatever that happens to be). Imagine if Murdoch was the one who owned Twitter and was censoring Biden for *insert reason here*. When maybe he didn’t do that, and even if he did its not Murdochs call to decide if Biden gets to talk to people. Now that I put it in those terms I’m honestly surprised this is legal at all. Can we call this insurrection, mutiny? I think the proper term is sedition, but yeah. Newspapers dont really have the same influenxe they used to have, the main issue would be if newspapers were going out of their way to paint a certain candidate in a certain manner. Technically laws already exist against libel, although with public figures theyre seldom applied. There is an issue with newspapers being sensationalist, and that’s existed since time immemorial. Although I suspect its gotten worse recently. Its hard to tell bc I dont read newspapers so I dont know how biased they can really get. At this point I point out -You can't agree with restricting social media, if you are fine with other media moguls like Murdoch (Which you poorly used as an example) being able to control media -You can't agree with only part of a statement from a leader and disregard the rest of what the said -When mentioned newspapers, I was rather referring to the entire media of Paper/TV/Internet in which is already controlled. -Newspapers are also not obsolete and still have a huge impact in politics I mean what you say about Murdochs already happens. And a vast majority of adults still pay attention to the newspapers. I may of allowed you to use the smallest example as a point, what I was mostly refering was media, so newspapers/TV/Online News. I just said newspapers to try and make it more simple. There is a free allowance of censorship and selective viewpoints controlled by humongous companies controlled by either one or few billionaires. Why is it fare to target social media and not these others? And no, you can't do that with Merkal. You cant cut her opinion in half, throw away the part you don't want to hear and then use the other half to push your point across. Please comment on this further. And you use the term papers but that isn't the full extent. Firstly you have every grocery retailer advertising their newspapers either with POS signage or/and main foot traffic areas with their front page aggressive putting forward the most eye-catching memorable headlines so even if you don't buy one, your still being their information. You have sets of "free" papers in various locations, we tend to have them on trains, free to take from shops, inside of waiting rooms and inside of staff areas and canteens. You then have all these newspapers online, infiltrating every social media and many other webpages trying to get you onto their site. You then have the broadcasted ones, from the many news channels or giant empires like Sky and Fox which they also use to push their personal goals. So yeh. Sure the younger Generation don't buy or read physical newspapers, but they are certainly easily targeted and also totally vulnerable. We just use the term newspapers for ease. And you can't agree with (or accept it at a cost) these media Monguls and be fine with how much control they have yet get unequally upset when social media does something which upsets you. That's just hypocritical. You still can't understand me. So here we go AGAIN. (Will number them for easier reply's, but feel free to refer to earlier posts.) 1). Which statement from Merkel are you referring to? 2). If it is .The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms It is incorrect to agree with only part of the statement (Where she says its not for social media to have to decide) Whilst ignoring the rest of the statement (Where she says laws should be put in place to stop the free speech instead of the social media) so, you either believe in free speech, or you believe in censorship which is it? 3)How is it fair to restrict social media in fear of allowing billionaires to control political information, yet not treat the rest of the media with the same passion (Newspapers/TV/Online News) which already have billionaires controlling political information? 4)We have shown how important "Newspapers" are. and we have shown that other media already heavily control politics (Like Murdoch). Do you agree with this? 5)Is this a problem? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 115] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 14th, 2021 12:23 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I'd kindly like to point out that this: is the cause of this thread, so let's not get carried away from the fun, gentlemen. Don't censor us. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 116] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : January 14th, 2021 12:38 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Don't censor us. FREEZEPEACH!!! can i negrep you at least -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 117] Auteur : Renegade Date : January 14th, 2021 12:53 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! FREEZEPEACH!!! can i negrep you at least Why? My contributions are perfectly on topic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 118] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : January 14th, 2021 01:08 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Why? My contributions are perfectly on topic. Does a post need to be off-topic for it to be negrepped? :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 119] Auteur : Light_Yagami Date : January 14th, 2021 10:55 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4vTHwvioZ4 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 120] Auteur : Donald J. Trump Date : January 15th, 2021 01:07 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! LIGHT YAGAMI, THE LOSER JAPANOAMERICAN, IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN NANCY "TRANNY" PELOSI, WHICH IS QUITE THE ACHIEVEMENT! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 121] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 15th, 2021 09:19 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Firstly, you mentioned Merkel with lack of quotes or link so I engaged and quoted what I think you may of been referring too and asked to clarify it. This was Ignored, or answered with a reply that has a vague relation but in no way easily noticeable as a reply. So I nudged you. So you want me to bring it up again Which I did You finally comment, don't really clarify we are talking about the same quote, and only agree on the select part where Merkel says private companies should be the ones to decide and ignore the part where she said its because there should be laws in place that restrict free speech so that private companies don't have to make that decision. (It would be like me saying "We should save lives by killing 95% of the population" and you then use it by saying "I agree with SJ we should save lives") Then you select Murdoch as an example of what would happen if a rich person controlled the distribution of information. But this already happens and Murdoch already does this and it heavily influences politics. And then you claim newspapers don't matter and they don't go out there way to paint a certain candidate (Which has been and still is easily disprovable) followed by you claiming you don't even know if they do or not. Which is a horrible way to make your point "X is true about Y, but you can't blame me if I'm wrong because I don't know" At this point I point out -You can't agree with restricting social media, if you are fine with other media moguls like Murdoch (Which you poorly used as an example) being able to control media -You can't agree with only part of a statement from a leader and disregard the rest of what the said -When mentioned newspapers, I was rather referring to the entire media of Paper/TV/Internet in which is already controlled. -Newspapers are also not obsolete and still have a huge impact in politics You still can't understand me. So here we go AGAIN. (Will number them for easier reply's, but feel free to refer to earlier posts.) 1). Which statement from Merkel are you referring to? 2). If it is It is incorrect to agree with only part of the statement (Where she says its not for social media to have to decide) Whilst ignoring the rest of the statement (Where she says laws should be put in place to stop the free speech instead of the social media) so, you either believe in free speech, or you believe in censorship which is it? 3)How is it fair to restrict social media in fear of allowing billionaires to control political information, yet not treat the rest of the media with the same passion (Newspapers/TV/Online News) which already have billionaires controlling political information? 4)We have shown how important "Newspapers" are. and we have shown that other media already heavily control politics (Like Murdoch). Do you agree with this? 5)Is this a problem? 1. Yes 2. I don’t think Trump should be censored even on legal grounds; free speech is paramount, but there are reasonable restrictions on free speech. The point is that not just anyone can censor speech if they feel like it for arbitrary reasons; restricting this ‘right’, if you want to call it that, to a government, ensures that only truly disruptive speech is censored (and only after found to be so in court of law. Remember that when a restriction on free speech is challenged in court, it is always assumed to be invalid unless proved otherwise - the Government has to make a case that the defendant should have their speech restricted. This is distinct from Twitter decidint on their own to censor the most powerful person in the world, a person which they share a fundamental disagreement with politically (conflict of interest)). 3. I will take a think about this 4. Yes 5. I don’t think it is, but that’s just a gut feeling on my part. Newspapers have been influencing ppl forever, but I have an issue with how some of them engage in... literal character assassinations. I am fairly certain this is mainly a US phenomenon, but I see no real end to that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 122] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 16th, 2021 02:58 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! 1. Yes 2. I don’t think Trump should be censored even on legal grounds; free speech is paramount, but there are reasonable restrictions on free speech. The point is that not just anyone can censor speech if they feel like it for arbitrary reasons; restricting this ‘right’, if you want to call it that, to a government, ensures that only truly disruptive speech is censored (and only after found to be so in court of law. Remember that when a restriction on free speech is challenged in court, it is always assumed to be invalid unless proved otherwise - the Government has to make a case that the defendant should have their speech restricted. This is distinct from Twitter decidint on their own to censor the most powerful person in the world, a person which they share a fundamental disagreement with politically (conflict of interest)). 3. I will take a think about this 4. Yes 5. I don’t think it is, but that’s just a gut feeling on my part. Newspapers have been influencing ppl forever, but I have an issue with how some of them engage in... literal character assassinations. I am fairly certain this is mainly a US phenomenon, but I see no real end to that. Hey man, could you tell me what conservative viewpoints one will get banned on Twitter for discussing or having? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 123] Auteur : rumox Date : January 16th, 2021 04:09 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I found an article (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190221/16154641652/does-twitter-have-anti-conservative-bias-just-anti-nazi-bias.shtml) saying these are conservative viewpoints that will get you banned: Violent threats, harassment, inciting violence, targeted abuse, doxxing, pro-Nazi tweets, and racist slurs. Is a joke -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 124] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 16th, 2021 05:58 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Donald Trump got banned from Twitter for being a conservative. Lol! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 125] Auteur : DJarJar Date : January 17th, 2021 12:13 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! like every loser hacker on sc2mafia, why doesn't donald just make himself a smurf account? Then he can play whackamole with the twitter mods -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 126] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 17th, 2021 03:08 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Donald Trump got banned from Twitter for being a conservative. Lol! Hey man, can you give me at least one example of a conservative opinion or viewpoint that will get you banned on Twitter? I just want to clarify your point so I can understand and discuss it, thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 127] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 17th, 2021 04:52 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Hey man, can you give me at least one example of a conservative opinion or viewpoint that will get you banned on Twitter? I just want to clarify your point so I can understand and discuss it, thanks. I think they are purposely avoiding speaking to you about it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 128] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 17th, 2021 05:37 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I think they are purposely avoiding speaking to you about it. I've really gotta wonder why. Its not like it should be a particularly difficult question, I'm just asking him to clarify and expand on his original point. That's like the easiest question one will ever be asked in a discussion or debate. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 129] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 17th, 2021 08:15 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! I think they are purposely avoiding speaking to you about it. Oh fuck off with your passive aggressive attitude. What happened to civilized discourse and not instantly assuming the other person is a sick evil person? In the interest of answering your question, I do not know exactly what conservative viewpoint gets you banned from Twitter but I assume immigration is one. COVID-19 too. Funny thing is, the latter only gets you banned or censored if you’re conservative. When Andrew Cuomo says its time to open up businesses, it’s totally fine. Funny thing is, I actually think illegal immigration is one of the central issues in America today. I’m not very happy with how being against illegal immigration is being painted as somehow being a racist. I think that speaks levels to how important that issue is to both parties ^^ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 130] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 17th, 2021 08:26 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Who has been banned for Conservative viewpoints on immigration and COVID-19? What viewpoints were those? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 131] Auteur : yzb25 Date : January 17th, 2021 09:27 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Oh fuck off with your passive aggressive attitude. What happened to civilized discourse and not instantly assuming the other person is a sick evil person? In the interest of answering your question, I do not know exactly what conservative viewpoint gets you banned from Twitter but I assume immigration is one. COVID-19 too. Funny thing is, the latter only gets you banned or censored if you’re conservative. When Andrew Cuomo says its time to open up businesses, it’s totally fine. Funny thing is, I actually think illegal immigration is one of the central issues in America today. I’m not very happy with how being against illegal immigration is being painted as somehow being a racist. I think that speaks levels to how important that issue is to both parties ^^ It's not passive aggressive at all. When we talked about police brutality, you asked us for examples and evidence of everything, and grilled each piece of information we gave - Can you prove that violence was unnecessary there? Is this truly indicative of a greater trend? What statistics irrefutably demonstrate that? That was completely fine, because if I have a problem with something the burden is on me to explain it. If you think twitter is unfairly targetting conservative viewpoints, you should be able to at least cite these cases and outline your problem. You cannot expect so much from us then get pissed when we expect the bare minimum from you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 132] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 17th, 2021 09:39 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! It's not passive aggressive at all. When we talked about police brutality, you asked us for examples and evidence of everything, and grilled each piece of information we gave - Can you prove that violence was unnecessary there? Is this truly indicative of a greater trend? What statistics irrefutably demonstrate that? That was completely fine, because if I have a problem with something the burden is on me to explain it. If you think twitter is unfairly targetting conservative viewpoints, you should be able to at least cite these cases and outline your problem. You cannot expect so much from us then get pissed when we expect the bare minimum from you. The article rumox linked to said 21/22 of the prominent people Twitter has suspended since 2017 voted or expressed a preference for Donald Trump. The 22nd person got suspended for posting someone’s private phone number (which is against Twitter’s terms). More broadly, someone (don’t remember the name) tweeted something about white people being inferior or some such: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” Nothing happened after the person posted said tweet but when Candace Owens (conservative) mimicked her tweets (swapping white for jewish) she got banned. Eventually she got unbanned and asked to delete the tweets. And no the point isn’t that that sort of language should be allowed, but it makes you wonder why liberals get a free pass to be racist whereas conservatives don’t. Shouldn’t neither get one? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 133] Auteur : yzb25 Date : January 17th, 2021 10:18 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! The article rumox linked to said 21/22 of the prominent people Twitter has suspended since 2017 voted or expressed a preference for Donald Trump. The 22nd person got suspended for posting someone’s private phone number (which is against Twitter’s terms). More broadly, someone (don’t remember the name) tweeted something about white people being inferior or some such: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” Nothing happened after the person posted said tweet but when Candace Owens (conservative) mimicked her tweets (swapping white for jewish) she got banned. Eventually she got unbanned and asked to delete the tweets. And no the point isn’t that that sort of language should be allowed, but it makes you wonder why liberals get a free pass to be racist whereas conservatives don’t. Shouldn’t neither get one? Well, this is something, but we're asking for an actual viewpoint. Not a "these people were dicks and got taken off the platform! This person was a dick and wasn't!". Because if your point is "conservatives have a much harder time being racist on twitter than liberals do!" that is a very different point lol -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 134] Auteur : SuperJack Date : January 17th, 2021 10:37 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Oh fuck off with your passive aggressive attitude. What happened to civilized discourse and not instantly assuming the other person is a sick evil person? In the interest of answering your question, I do not know exactly what conservative viewpoint gets you banned from Twitter but I assume immigration is one. COVID-19 too. Funny thing is, the latter only gets you banned or censored if you’re conservative. When Andrew Cuomo says its time to open up businesses, it’s totally fine. Funny thing is, I actually think illegal immigration is one of the central issues in America today. I’m not very happy with how being against illegal immigration is being painted as somehow being a racist. I think that speaks levels to how important that issue is to both parties ^^ It was a stab at Oops not you. Because oops is obviously enjoying the trolling and getting the reactions and it was getting mildly irritating to hear him. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 135] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 17th, 2021 10:50 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! It was a stab at Oops not you. Because oops is obviously enjoying the trolling and getting the reactions and it was getting mildly irritating to hear him. Oh my bad lol. I misread then. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 136] Auteur : Grayswandir Date : January 17th, 2021 10:52 AM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! Well, this is something, but we're asking for an actual viewpoint. Not a "these people were dicks and got taken off the platform! This person was a dick and wasn't!". Because if your point is "conservatives have a much harder time being racist on twitter than liberals do!" that is a very different point lol I will try to look for it, I’ve been finding it quite hard to find specific examples. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 137] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 17th, 2021 02:59 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! It was a stab at Oops not you. Because oops is obviously enjoying the trolling and getting the reactions and it was getting mildly irritating to hear him. I'm not even trolling man. I'm trying to understand what the dudes argument even is and giving him a chance, and repeating the question because he was avoiding it for some reason. It took three or four reposts of the same question to get him to even acknowledge it. It's like if you were having a debate with someone about climate change, and one of the people in the debate refuses to even define what climate change is. How can you have any further discussion about the topic when one person hasn't even made an argument? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 138] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : January 17th, 2021 03:03 PM Title : Re: FUCK TWITTER!!! And no the point isn’t that that sort of language should be allowed, but it makes you wonder why liberals get a free pass to be racist whereas conservatives don’t. Shouldn’t neither get one? Also, I thought you were of the opinion that twitter shouldn't censor people, now you're saying you should be censored for racism? That makes my question now even more relevant, since I'm wondering what kind of points should Conservatives be allowed to make on Twitter that they're currently being banned for, if you think them being banned for certain viewpoints like racism is ok. I mean I suppose if your argument is that twitter is more trigger-happy about the rules (rules that you're otherwise ok with them enforcing, that is) when it comes to Conservatives then that's something else and something that can be discussed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-