Its more about Trump and the supporters. Parler would not agree to the draconian moderation rules. Those rules make it easy to target anyone who the left dislikes.
Gab up 735%
- Thread starter DCandtheUTBand
- Start date
How do they address calls to overthrow the government?
How do they address violence against others?
How do they address racist language?
I honestly am curious. I understand that some of these are subjective, so that means someone is making that decision. Who’s to say they won’t be more biased against Liberals?
Regardless, I have no problem with how they operate as a private business. Competition is always good, but I have no use for them if they allow the above.
Nope, because their wasn’t enough evidence for one. That’s how the system works. First you have to provide evidence in order to actually have a trial. Funny concept, huh?
How does Twitter allow #hangmikepence to trend for days on their platform?
What about Twitter allowing reporters calling to burn the government to the ground?
What about Twitter allowing the heads of Iran to call for the murder of Americans or Jews?
This is a small example of what Twitter allows everyday on their platform with no censorship but to have accounts banned, like mine, because I do not agree with the liberal agenda is ok?
Or... to coordinate with other tech companies to try and shut down a competitor because people were flocking to their platform in droves and they were losing money and that’s ok?
The big tech censoring is a first amendment issue and if we the people do not rise up against this then this is only going to get worse.
They can hide behind section 230 but keep in mind that section 230 is a subsidy that was granted by the government via the people we elect. Any platform that edits any users posts becomes a publisher and should have section 230 revoked and allow the people to prosecute. Parler wasn’t editing users posts, Twitter was and is still doing.
Last point, do you realize how dangerous it is for Twitter to suspend the presidential Twitter account? Not only is that a first amendment violation but a threat to National Security. Imagine a terror attack and the office of the president cannot communicate with the people of the United States and people died? Would the families of the deceased be allowed to prosecute Twitter or would they get to hide behind section 230? They’re playing a dangerous game because they hate Trump.
Twitter allows its employees to moderate content.
It's employees are political activists who support Hiden. Which means they, by extension, support censorship of facts that hurt Hiden.
This isn't that hard. There's a reason why Twitter moved from machine to human moderation prior to the 2020 election. To interfere in it.
It's employees are political activists who support Hiden. Which means they, by extension, support censorship of facts that hurt Hiden.
This isn't that hard. There's a reason why Twitter moved from machine to human moderation prior to the 2020 election. To interfere in it.
You seem to be arguing for more censorship, not less. I agree. I think Twitter should do more to clean up threats against people.
As far as Trump, based on his actions prior to the riot, I have no problem with suspending his account until after the inauguration. A lifetime ban seems to be a bit harsh though.
ITS NOT A FURST AMENDMENT ISSUE. That only applies to government restrictions on free speech. Come on, you know better than that.
What I don’t understand is why he needs Twitter. He can hold a press briefing anytime he wants, yet won’t. Is he afraid the press will call him out on his BS allegations? Of course he is. He wants to be able to spread hate and lies without anyone pushing back. If I owned Twitter, I’d have banned him sooner. He’‘s a danger to our democracy.
Dana Loesch gets death threats every single day. She RTs the more tame ones. But she's a gun-totin' Trump supporter to the political activists that moderate Twitter, so little gets done.
Machine moderation: If you threaten violence against someone, you are banned.
Political activst moderation: If you threaten violence against someone, well if it's Trump or his supporters, the bastards probably deserve it. No harm, no foul.
Machine moderation: If you threaten violence against someone, you are banned.
Political activst moderation: If you threaten violence against someone, well if it's Trump or his supporters, the bastards probably deserve it. No harm, no foul.
Opposite, if platforms are allowed section 230 protection then let the people say or believe what they want as long as it’s not against their terms of service, aka hate speech. To sensor or ban one group of people for believing in an opposite view but not actually condemn and remove posts from country leaders calling for violence is a little hypocritical. If they don’t want to abide by their own terms of service and would rather edit, sensor or remove users from the platform then they don’t deserve 230 protection.
Why would you want anyone suspended for exercising their first amendment right within the Twitter terms of service?
It absolutely is a first amendment issue when you purge users and platforms because you don’t agree with what they’re saying. That’s like me calling to have you banned, then being named, because there is very little we agree on. I wouldn’t do that because I do believe in fred speech.
It’s not about the need of Twitter, it’s about if there was an emergency and the official Twitter account is suspended and people do not get any info from the office of the president, then they should be absolutely liable for a class action lawsuit.
Not only that, a legally case could possibly be made that Twitter is interfering with normal governance by interfering with the President's ability to communicate with the citizens.
Again, because companies are free to restrict any speech they want.
If you work for a company and start spouting off violent, racist and/or wild conspiracy theories, they are free to fire you. You can’t go running to the first amendment to save you. When you join Twitter, you agree to their terms of service. No one is forcing you to use them.
I don’t know why people don’t understand this.
You're arguing a point that was never made. I suspect it's because you don't understand why CDA Section 230 protections are important, or even what they are.
Twitter has every right to do what they are doing. That's due to their CDA Section 230 Protections. The issue is, those protections weren't intended to be used as Twitter is using them.
Plus, they are 25 years old, and were created over a decade before we had Twitter. They are long overdue to be revisited and updated.
The customers do not work for the company. Anther pumpkin is a banana analogy. Twats TOS make them a publisher and not a platform so their section 230 privs should be suspended at the least.
I am ready for states and feds to write laws that void sections in contracts that infringe on legal rights. Its their job to report illegal speech to authorities not to ban the user.
You do know gubs prevent certain things from being used in contracts all the times, right?
It doesn’t matter is they work for them or not. They’ve agreed to the terms of service. The first amendment doesn’t apply.
You can’t pass a law that restricts a company’s right to set their own terms of service. That’s an unconstitutional restriction on private property and free association rights. Thats what communist countries do.
The only legal restrictions have to do with anti discrimination and public nuisance laws. I doubt this would qualify. Sorry.
For the love of God man, read carefully.
Section 230 is there for platforms such as Twitter and FB. It excludes them from prosecution under law because they are not liable for what their users say. Newspapers agencies, news agencies and the like do not get 230 protection since they are a publisher. See Lin Wood/Sandman lawsuit against msm.
Twitter, FB = platform = 230 protection
Mainstream media = publisher = no 230 protection
Still following me?
Twitter banned myself, Trump and thousands of others because they do not like what we have to say. None of us, to my knowledge, has broken any terms of service that Twitter has supplied. That is called a first amendment violation. Because Twitter is a platform and is protected by 230, I cannot prosecute under law. Do you see the issue with this? THEY BANNED US BECAUSE THEY DIDNT LIKE WHAT WE HAD TO SAY! No terms of service were violated. If no terms wereviolated and we got banned anyway, that is a violation of the first amendment.
As I, Trump and thousands of other conservative voices are being removed. The leader of Iran is calling for death to America and death to Jews. Those Tweets are in violation of Twitter’s TOS but yet they have not removed the tweet or banned the account. Now why in the hell do you think that is Buca? Think critically here.
When Twitter and FB thought it would be a great idea to put disclaimers on the tweets or posts of the people they don’t agree with, they are altering the posts. Because the user does not give them the right to do so, they now enter the publishing world and should be treated as so.
Now, section 230 is a subsidy that we the people have given big tech. When you coordinate an attack on another company to have them removed because they don’t play the same game as big tech and users moving to said platform, then these companies are not only violating the first amendment of the said company but also the users that use that service since big tech doesn’t want to allow users such as myself to express my opinion.
This isn’t hard
Well it is for @BSC911, cause he has no idea what CDA Section 230 is or what it was designed to do. That's why he keeps arguing points that no one made, cause he wants to deflect off to other topics and get off 230.
Out of respect for Fresno I have not used the term Simple Jack. Just sayin’...
And sometimes one only needs to find a trivial procedural detail to avoid making any call whatsoever because the idea of consideration scares the sh!t out of you.
At some point you guys are going to learn that being less than completely honest is an unworkable tenet in debate.
More...less...whatever. But how about we just apply it evenly without the partisan BS??? Crazy talk, I know.
Similar threads
