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.
Druff, These bans aren't because of their opinions on healthcare and abortion.
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 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.
POKER FAG ALERT! FOR BLOW JOB SEE SLOPPY JOE THE TRANNIE HO.
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.
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.
Last edited by duped_samaritan; 01-18-2021 at 03:47 PM.
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.
SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798
PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
You started off well, then went into the weeds.
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.
SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798
PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
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.
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!
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.Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)