Sure. Every right wing org is Proud Boys and any stick that goes boom is an AR.
Sure. Every right wing org is Proud Boys and any stick that goes boom is an AR.
Andy Ngo says Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front is Antifa.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Druff, These bans aren't because of their opinions on healthcare and abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYes, I can feel free to report any left wing (or foreign) accounts for ToS infringements.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
EXCEPT....
There have been ZERO prominent left wing leaders banned.
There have been ZERO prominent foreign leaders banned, even ones calling for violence.
There have been ZERO warnings of "inaccurate" or "misleading" placed upon any left-wing tweets.
I'm sure this is because the only misbehavior on Twitter occurs on the right, and not because a crazy SJW is now in charge of the day-to-day operations of the place. Oh, and remember when Martina Navratilova, famous lesbian tennis player, got banned in 2019 for stating that she didn't feel trans women should be playing in women's sports leagues?
The woke censors are coming for you at Twitter! But I'm sure gimmick thinks they do a great job enforcing their ToS equally.
They tried to violently overthrow the government by spreading misinformation and promoting their 'stop the steal' rally on social media.
An angry mob stormed the capital, broke into lawmakers offices, were literally trying to hunt down the VP and Speaker of the House.
You really think the left has done anything on the same level?
Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanDruff, These bans aren't because of their opinions on healthcare and abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
They tried to violently overthrow the government by spreading misinformation and promoting their 'stop the steal' rally on social media.
An angry mob stormed the capital, broke into lawmakers offices, were literally trying to hunt down the VP and Speaker of the House.
You really think the left has done anything on the same level?
The issue of the Twitter bans is discussed cogently in this commentary by Brian Tyler Cohen.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanDruff, These bans aren't because of their opinions on healthcare and abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
They tried to violently overthrow the government by spreading misinformation and promoting their 'stop the steal' rally on social media.
An angry mob stormed the capital, broke into lawmakers offices, were literally trying to hunt down the VP and Speaker of the House.
You really think the left has done anything on the same level?
https://youtu.be/Q8wgNX2S0Hk
The left is much worse. 9 months of riots. Multi-Billions in property damage. 47 people killed. Hundreds of cops injured. Thousands of businesses ruined. Economic zones in big cities are now blighted areas with no activity. And the far left isn't through. They will continue rioting for the forseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanDruff, These bans aren't because of their opinions on healthcare and abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
They tried to violently overthrow the government by spreading misinformation and promoting their 'stop the steal' rally on social media.
An angry mob stormed the capital, broke into lawmakers offices, were literally trying to hunt down the VP and Speaker of the House.
You really think the left has done anything on the same level?
And if the violent protests (most were not violent) had a leader that was openly organizing/promoting/hyping them on twitter in a way that resulted in more violence, they would be banned also. And you wouldn't be bitching about it even a little bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThe left is much worse. 9 months of riots. Multi-Billions in property damage. 47 people killed. Hundreds of cops injured. Thousands of businesses ruined. Economic zones in big cities are now blighted areas with no activity. And the far left isn't through. They will continue rioting for the forseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Seriously, imagine for one second that AOC riled up an angry mob that went and stormed the capital and Twitter banned her for it. How would your reaction differ from Trump being banned.
I don't think Twitter should be able to ban Trump or anyone else. I think private policing of the public discourse is dangerous. But to get to that place we need an overhaul of how the internet is regulated.
For decades Republicans have been on the side of corporate power and private enterprise to act as they wish.
To undo that the internet needs to be regulated as a utility meaning net neutrality rules back in place.
That's not all Republicans have done. A doctor can legally prescribe a drug to a woman and a pharmacist has a right to refuse to fill it because they have a "moral objection." Too fucking bad. Don't be a pharmacist if you don't want to fill prescriptions. For women in rural or heavily religious areas it may not be easy to go to a different pharmacy, and she shouldn't have to.
A huge employer (Hobby Lobby) can deny contraceptive coverage required by law to thousands of employees because of the owners' religious beliefs. Apparently the distinction between a corporation and its owners suddenly disappears when there's an opportunity to make life difficult for women.
This is the world the Republicans have created through the courts. Almost limitless privilege for private enterprise at the expense of the public good.
So when we undo those, then Trump can have his Twitter account back. Until then, you made your bed and now you can lie in it.
I don't recall the NY Post trying to overthrow the government when writing about Hunter Biden's laptop.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanDruff, These bans aren't because of their opinions on healthcare and abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
They tried to violently overthrow the government by spreading misinformation and promoting their 'stop the steal' rally on social media.
An angry mob stormed the capital, broke into lawmakers offices, were literally trying to hunt down the VP and Speaker of the House.
You really think the left has done anything on the same level?
Somehow they got banned, as did anyone who tried to link the story.
You started off well, then went into the weeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Your first line is correct -- and the most important. Public officials should not be silenced by huge private companies.
However, then you make all kinds of false equivalence to other controversial rights granted to private businesses which have nothing to do with public discourse. These are all complicated and separate legal issues which deserve debate, but Democrats should not support censorship of Republican elected officials as punishment for previous decisions they didn't like.
Sanlmar used to laugh at me when I talked about "intelligent light regulation", but I actually believe that's the key here. I don't want to see Twitter and Facebook heavily regulated, but at the same time, a complete lack of regulation has resulted in disaster regarding ideology-based censorship and suppression.
I have already stated the rules I'd like to see put into law for large social media, regarding censorship:
- No banning or censorship of major elected public officials, with the exception of temp banning when it's clear their account has been hacked.
- No warning labels are allowed for misinformation on messages posted by duly elected public officials.
- No suppression of stories by any large, established form of news media. No warning labels may be on these stories, either.
This won't completely solve the problem, but it will be a big step to at least curb some of the immense censorship power wielded (and abused) by large social media.
It's not a quid pro quo. The issue is how much control corporations should have over our lives. They shouldn't be able to shut people out of the public square, and they shouldn't be able to dictate who can use birth control or a morning-after pill either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYou started off well, then went into the weeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Your first line is correct -- and the most important. Public officials should not be silenced by huge private companies.
However, then you make all kinds of false equivalence to other controversial rights granted to private businesses which have nothing to do with public discourse. These are all complicated and separate legal issues which deserve debate, but Democrats should not support censorship of Republican elected officials as punishment for previous decisions they didn't like.
Sanlmar used to laugh at me when I talked about "intelligent light regulation", but I actually believe that's the key here. I don't want to see Twitter and Facebook heavily regulated, but at the same time, a complete lack of regulation has resulted in disaster regarding ideology-based censorship and suppression.
I have already stated the rules I'd like to see put into law for large social media, regarding censorship:
- No banning or censorship of major elected public officials, with the exception of temp banning when it's clear their account has been hacked.
- No warning labels are allowed for misinformation on messages posted by duly elected public officials.
- No suppression of stories by any large, established form of news media. No warning labels may be on these stories, either.
This won't completely solve the problem, but it will be a big step to at least curb some of the immense censorship power wielded (and abused) by large social media.
And then they got unbanned a few days later and Twitter explained why they were banned and why they changed their mind and the policy they changed about hacked material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI don't recall the NY Post trying to overthrow the government when writing about Hunter Biden's laptop.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Somehow they got banned, as did anyone who tried to link the story.
Ironic considering the thread you just started about unbanning the users you banned a few days ago.
Actually, they didn't get unbanned a few days later!Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanAnd then they got unbanned a few days later and Twitter explained why they were banned and why they changed their mind and the policy they changed about hacked material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Ironic considering the thread you just started about unbanning the users you banned a few days ago.
They were told that they had to delete their post if they wanted to get unbanned, but were "welcome to repost the same thing".
They made some bullshit excuse how the system worked that way, and it was impossible to do otherwise -- which is complete bullshit, and anyone with a technical background understands that.
Are you saying you believe that "hacked materials" BS? Do you really think that's why they did it? If they were so concerned with articles based upon stolen/hacked materials, why did they allow the NY Times article about Trump's stolen tax returns? You realize it's a pretty serious crime to access someone else's tax return without their permission, right?
Someone tried that. It was called "Parler". You saw what happened to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Who is denying Parler to buy their own servers and set up shop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Antifa, BLM advertised their riots beforehand on twitter to get people to show up. Where was your butt-boy, Jack Dorsey, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanAnd if the violent protests (most were not violent) had a leader that was openly organizing/promoting/hyping them on twitter in a way that resulted in more violence, they would be banned also. And you wouldn't be bitching about it even a little bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Seriously, imagine for one second that AOC riled up an angry mob that went and stormed the capital and Twitter banned her for it. How would your reaction differ from Trump being banned.
Then don't tell private companies that under penalty of law they have to bake a cake for a wedding.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamantiumWho is denying Parler to buy their own servers and set up shop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Nobody is telling them that. They won their case.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThen don't tell private companies that under penalty of law they have to bake a cake for a wedding.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamantium