User Controls
Poll: Will Elon Musk take over Twitter?
- Yes a win for free speech .
-
No I cry when people type things I don't agreed with.
- mmQ ,
- troon ,
- Meikai ,
- AngryOnion ,
- Sudo ,
- Donald Trump ,
- Bradley
Twitter Is Under Siege
-
2022-04-15 at 4:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Non sequitur, your example has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st amendment which is the discussion here.
oh, so by your logic since the 2nd amendment specifically grants you the right to bear arms to defend yourself against yout government in the unlikely event that it shall turn tyranneous,
you can only use your firearms AGAINST the government and NOT against your fellow citizens or ferral and domesticated negroes. -
2022-04-15 at 4:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny oh, so by your logic since the 2nd amendment specifically grants you the right to bear arms to defend yourself against yout government in the unlikely event that it shall turn tyranneous,
you can only use your firearms AGAINST the government and NOT against your fellow citizens or ferral and domesticated negroes.
Again completely non sequitur.
I suggest you ask for your money back from your English comprehension classes and instead purchase some used panties from those vending machines they have over in yellow land. -
2022-04-15 at 4:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra when they constitute a monopoly on online speech (in terms of the first amendment, a standin for the idea of a 'town square') then yes, the constitution should legally apply to them
This is true. If your laws and protections lead to the violation of someone's rights, then you are violating their rights.
Twitter couldn't exist without taxpayer funded legal protection, access to government funded resources and technologies, etc.
Therefore it should be beholden to the government and abide by government standards, same as any organisation.
Yet at the same time as modern business somehow doesn't have to abide by the first amendment, it does have to follow all the other laws, like the civil rights shit and the creepy reporting on users stuff. -
2022-04-15 at 4:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Not true at all as far as the 1st amendment goes, and twitter doesn't hold a monopoly anyway. IF the government got involved in specific posts/bans made by private company then that itself would be goverenment interference and a breach of Twitter's (or whatever platform) right to free speech.
A private company/organization CANNOT infringe on the 1st amendment rights of it's members as there are no such requirements for them to abide by them (read the 1st amendment), not to mention the fact when you sign up with Twitter or any other such platform the rules are there and the right for the platform to terminate your account at anytime for any reason is also there…you agree to that when you sign up.
Case closed.
you don't say 'case closed' just because you don't understand nuance.
all of the 'big tech' FAGMANs operate in unison; their ToS are literally synchronised with each other and bans/punishments are instituted cross-platform. Trump was banned from every major platform inside a day. any emerging competitors get the same treatment, as well as being banned from payment processing and funding platforms, such as Gab or Hatreon. Daily Stormer has been banned from every hosting and VPS platform, even to the extent that his domain names get canceled even if they're not held by the US. they are a cartel with a very real monopoly on internet visibility.
When a company or a cartel has the effective power of government in a specific sphere, they need to be held to the same standards. -
2022-04-15 at 4:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny lol.
trump already have his own twitter.
why would he return.
We all know what an overwhelming success Trumps Truth Social has been
Interestingly, Truth Social has specific rules limiting speech on the platform when it involves Trump and others who own the platform. When Truth Social was first announced last year, the site's terms of services explicitly prohibited "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site."
Now that’s what I call Freedom of Speech!
Much like the rest of his bigly successful business ventures
1. Trump Steaks
2. GoTrump
3. Trump Airlines
4. Trump Vodka
5. Trump Mortgage
6. Trump: The Game
7. Trump Magazine
8. Trump University
9. Trump Ice
10. The New Jersey Generals
11. Tour de Trump
12. Trump Network
13. Trumped!
Trump companies that sought bankruptcy protection:
1. Trump Taj Mahal
2. Trump’s Castle
3. Trump Plaza Casinos
4. Trump Plaza Hotel
5. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts
6. Trump Entertainment Resorts
Yet This is the guy Republicans want leading America’s economy LMAO -
2022-04-15 at 4:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump This is true.
No it isn't...show in in the first amendment where it says the gov can get involved in a private platforms banning or restriction of one of its' members posts...THAT INVOLVEMENT WOULD BE A BREACH OF TWITTERS 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
..and again no social media platform has a monopoly...there's literally dozens and dozens of them...so it's a moot fantasy anyway. -
2022-04-15 at 4:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra When a company or a cartel has the effective power of government in a specific sphere, they need to be held to the same standards.
You personal needs have nothing to do with the actual law.
That has zero to do with the discussion about 1st amendment rights and censoring someone on a social platform...feel free to show my ANYWHERE in the 1st amendment where that is indicated...
AGAIN TWITTER DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY.
Twitter hasn't done anything illegal or breached the 1st amendment by deleting a persons posts and/or banning their account...none/nil/zip/nada.
...again you agree to that when you open an account...not that any agreement is really needed, they can delete anyone they like whenever they like. -
2022-04-15 at 4:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson No it isn't…show in in the first amendment where it says the gov can get involved in a private platforms banning or restriction of one of its' members posts…THAT INVOLVEMENT WOULD BE A BREACH OF TWITTERS 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
..and again no social media platform has a monopoly…there's literally dozens and dozens of them…so it's a moot fantasy anyway.
You used caps lock. You lost the debate, boomer. -
2022-04-15 at 4:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson You personal needs have nothing to do with the actual law.
way to not understand the post
That has zero to do with the discussion about 1st amendment rights and censoring someone on a social platform…feel free to show my ANYWHERE in the 1st amendment where that is indicated…
AGAIN TWITTER DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. -
2022-04-15 at 4:31 PM UTCClearly many of you don't understand how the 1st amendment works and how it doesn't apply to ANYTHING other than government interference. Your wants and needs are irrelevant to that fact.
Social Media is NOT a free speech platform as none of it is a government run/owned organization (that I'm aware of). There isn't a singular instance of ANY of them having a monopoly...there are all competitors of each other, twitter, you tube, Instagram, tiktok and the dozens of dozens of other platforms were people are able to "throw in there to cents"....if Twitter ban you, take it to youtube, if youtube bans you take it to tiktok etc...if EVERYONE bans you START YOUR OWN PLATFORM.
Lots of people go out in the streets with their banners and microphones and shout their spiel to the world...You can do that without government interference as long as you don't breach any local bylaws while doing it. -
2022-04-15 at 4:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra way to not understand the post
ANY attempted counter argument is moot...again, "Free speech" and "Twitter" are not a thing...simple as that, any attempt to suggest they are shows a complete lack of understanding of the 1st amendment. It's really that simple.
"Wants needs and wishes" of how things work need not apply. -
2022-04-15 at 4:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Again completely non sequitur.
I suggest you ask for your money back from your English comprehension classes and instead purchase some used panties from those vending machines they have over in yellow land.
its called logical deduction.
if the first amendment only protects your freedom of freespeech from the government,
then it is logical to conclude that the second amendment also only protects your freedom to use firearms against the government, and no one else. -
2022-04-15 at 4:33 PM UTC
-
2022-04-15 at 4:35 PM UTC
-
2022-04-15 at 4:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny if the first amendment only protects your freedom of freespeech from the government,
then it is logical to conclude that the second amendment also only protects your freedom to use firearms against the government, and no one else.
The 2nd amendment only protects your right to bear arms...NOT how you use those arms.
Case closed -
2022-04-15 at 4:36 PM UTC
-
2022-04-15 at 4:37 PM UTCwho does your first amendmemt protects you from ?
the government.
and who does your second amendment protects you from ?
the government. -
2022-04-15 at 4:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson ANY attempted counter argument is moot…again, "Free speech" and "Twitter" are not a thing…simple as that, any attempt to suggest they are shows a complete lack of understanding of the 1st amendment. It's really that simple
Wow, tactical nihilism launch detected.
"what is even free speech? what if you don't have freedom to express free speech, then how could free speech even come into being?"
"does twitter even exist? What if you changed each piece of twitter, one at a time, with a copy? At the end every single piece of twitter has been changed. Would what you have at the end still be twitter?" -
2022-04-15 at 4:39 PM UTC
-
2022-04-15 at 4:40 PM UTC
