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 1:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Wariat i can prove to you star trek twitter is a baised hypocrtyical shit dumb run by feminsits who banned me multiple times for no reason and not the females or other side for starting shit first with me.
Everyone knows twitter is run by the right wing zionist jedis and crusading ignorant shitlibs.
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson It's still a privately owned organization…privately owned organizations are not beholden to fairy tale ideals such as free speech
They can/do and will ban anyone they like…
You arguing that Twitter management has free reign to fight with it's userbase, destroy conversation, and ban users is a bit like me arguing that ExxonMobil management has free reign to close its oil wells, sell off its assets and donate its pipelines for scrap metal.
No, they don't.
If you are management you are hired to do a job, and destroying the company assets and ability to create revenue isn't it. -
2022-04-15 at 1:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump Everyone knows twitter is run by the right wing zionist jedis and crusading ignorant shitlibs.
You arguing that Twitter management has free reign to fight with it's userbase, destroy conversation, and ban users is a bit like me arguing that ExxonMobile management has free reign to close its oil wells, sell off its assets and donate its pipelines for scrap metal.
No, they don't.
If you are management you are hired to do a job, and destroying the company assets and ability to create revenue isn't it.
You're living in fairy land
They banned a sitting president for his "free speech"...lololol. they can/do and will ban whoever they so choose.
You should probably learn the basics of free speech and who is and isn't required to "honor" it...privately owned businesses are NOT.
(also learn the difference between public owned and publicly traded) -
2022-04-15 at 1:24 PM UTCOh and get back to me next time the shareholders have a vote of no confidence because they banned someone
-
2022-04-15 at 1:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson They banned a sitting president for his "free speech"…lololol. they can/do and will ban whoever they so choose.
They banned him as part of efforts to "fortify" the 2020 election - in other words as part of the work to rig the election - not because they cared what he said.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-04-15 at 1:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump They banned him as part of efforts to "fortify" the 2020 election - in other words as part of the work to rig the election - not because they cared what he said.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
lolol...as twitter is ONLY a platform for "what people say"...there is nothing else they can ban him for other that "what he says"
-
2022-04-15 at 1:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson lolol…as twitter is ONLY a platform for "what people say"…there is nothing else they can ban him for other that "what he says"
They ban people for who they are too. For instance they banned Jared Taylor, who is the most civil, peaceful and reasonable man I have ever heard of.
They even ban people who don't even speak. For instance they banned Xurious Music, who makes electronic, fashwave music without any vocals. -
2022-04-15 at 1:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump They ban people for who they are too. For instance they banned Jared Taylor, who is the most civil, peaceful and reasonable man I have ever heard of.
They even ban people who don't even speak. For instance they banned Xurious Music, who makes electronic, fashwave music without any vocals.
So what you are saying is they ban whoever they like...
Yes, that's what I said originally...Twitter are NOT required to adhere to any fairy tales such as "free speech"
Besides the fact the idea of "free speech" is laughably naive in the first place, private entities are not required to abide by said fairy tale. -
2022-04-15 at 1:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood I'll take that action. he is NEVER coming back.
It's not even a "hurr durr muh cancel" Jack Doresey isn't even that much of a leftist, he's gone full rypto degen mode. Trump got banned because he's a fucking idiot that broke twitter rules and bans like his don't get "reversed" certainly not for a political reason. He literally broke the rules
Quiet, commie. -
2022-04-15 at 1:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump They banned him as part of efforts to "fortify" the 2020 election - in other words as part of the work to rig the election - not because they cared what he said.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
He also believes the U.S. government practiced bird genocide. So real birds could be replaced with drone replicas flying all around to spy on us, listen to what we say, track where we go and record with whom we associate. The sparrow we think we see is a drone. Birds aren’t real. -
2022-04-15 at 1:40 PM UTCIf Elon musk does buy it then you get to adhere to his opinions and what/who he decides to ban...or not ban.
There is absolutely no change in that dynamic...twitter still decides who they ban, who they don't and free speech is irrelevant to that "choice".
OP doesn't understand the basics of how his own country works. -
2022-04-15 at 1:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson So what you are saying is they ban whoever they like…
Yes, that's what I said originally…Twitter are NOT required to adhere to any fairy tales such as "free speech"
Besides the fact the idea of "free speech" is laughably naive in the first place, private entities are not required to abide by said fairy tale.
They ban whoever the ADL tells them to ban. That is who tells twitter what to do.
https://about.twitter.com/en/our-priorities/healthy-conversations/trust-and-safety-council
https://www.cnet.com/culture/adl-anti-defamation-league-facebook-twitter-google-hate-speech/
If the ADL had their way the goyim would be slaves and have no money, property, rights or freedom.
That's a bit like Greta telling ExxonMobil what oil well she wants shut, and they do what she says. -
2022-04-15 at 1:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson …private entities are not required to abide by said fairy tale.
Yes, they are. Section 230 provides them immunity from lawsuit, as long as they do not act as a publisher. By harassing and banning viewpoints they don't like, while only leaving up content they agree with, they are a publisher by default. A publisher by omission. -
2022-04-15 at 1:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson It's still a privately owned organization…privately owned organizations are not beholden to fairy tale ideals such as free speech
They can/do and will ban anyone they like…
they can but they shouldnt and choose sides thats the issues. public discourse is about different opinions or points of views not shitting the opposite side down to feel important. its what feminists never get or twitter... -
2022-04-15 at 1:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson If Elon musk does buy it then you get to adhere to his opinions and what/who he decides to ban…or not ban.
There is absolutely no change in that dynamic…twitter still decides who they ban, who they don't and free speech is irrelevant to that "choice".
OP doesn't understand the basics of how his own country works.
Shouldn’t come as a shock since he also admitted he cries when people type things he doesn’t agreed with. -
2022-04-15 at 1:43 PM UTChow do they expect it to be a forum like the forums of old greece or athens with differen politicians having discourse when the first time someone defends maps or pedphilia or european age of consent laws or prostasia they get banned?
-
2022-04-15 at 1:44 PM UTCwhich is sort of funny because prostasia itself doesnt get banned but threats and hateful speech agaisnt it gets allowed and anyone defending it get banned.
-
2022-04-15 at 1:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson If Elon musk does buy it then you get to adhere to his opinions and what/who he decides to ban…or not ban.
There is absolutely no change in that dynamic…twitter still decides who they ban, who they don't and free speech is irrelevant to that "choice".
OP doesn't understand the basics of how his own country works.
He'd be the owner. He could buy it, take it private (which means paying off all the other shareholders), and delete it if he wanted. That's how capitalism works.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-04-15 at 1:45 PM UTCWhen did this turn into a pro pedophile debate?
Originally posted by Wariat how do they expect it to be a forum like the forums of old greece or athens with differen politicians having discourse when the first time someone defends maps or pedphilia or european age of consent laws or prostasia they get banned?
-
2022-04-15 at 1:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump They ban whoever the ADL tells them to ban.
You're not getting it are you...whatever the source/method of the ban...they ban...FREE SPEECH is NOT a consideration and NOT applicable to a PRIVATELY OWNED organization. Even mentioning it in relation to a private organization shows nativity and lack of understand of how it even works.
-
2022-04-15 at 1:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump He'd be the owner. He could buy it, take it private (which means paying off all the other shareholders), and delete it if he wanted. That's how capitalism works.
Yup...free speech not applicable, never was, never will be unless the government directly take over it...and even then you've gotta have been born yesterday to believe a government run organization would support "free speech"
