13 minutes ago, Virt said:

I think it's a dangerous path to choose, no matter who they ban from their platform. 

 

I'm not a big fan of censorship and when platforms start to ban politicians, they are taking side and that's not their job. 

 

It's important that noone are silenced no matter how much we may disagree with those individuals. 

 

After the latest scandals I started to look into some of the background of Those Q people and holy <deleted> what a bunch of messed up ideas , but I still wouldn't want them banned from various platforms. 

 

So yeah, I think Twitter made a wrong decision. 

Luckily, Twitter doesn't agree with you.  Guaranteed, some very smart people made this decision, and for very good reasons.  Propagation of lies shouldn't be allowed on any media platform.  Too many aren't smart enough to research the truth. 

 

You are aware someone died because of fake news from Q?  So you are OK with that?

 

Read this and get back to us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/protests-trump-disinformation.html?smid=tw-share

Quote

For years, professional grifters, trolls, true believers and political opportunists have sowed conspiratorial lies. We are now witnessing the reaping.

 

39 minutes ago, Virt said:

I think it's a dangerous path to choose, no matter who they ban from their platform. 

 

I'm not a big fan of censorship and when platforms start to ban politicians, they are taking side and that's not their job. 

 

It's important that noone are silenced no matter how much we may disagree with those individuals. 

 

After the latest scandals I started to look into some of the background of Those Q people and holy <deleted> what a bunch of messed up ideas , but I still wouldn't want them banned from various platforms. 

 

So yeah, I think Twitter made a wrong decision. 

 

trump attempted to reverse protection legislation for social media companies to make them liable for content on their platforms as is the case in Thailand. In other words trump was endeavouring to supress free speech in the USA. Do you now understand trump's strategy of lies and deceit to enable a drift to authoritarianism? 

 

twitter's reasoning to ban trump is in the public domain.

44 minutes ago, Justgrazing said:

Final secret transmission within the Presidential device to it's own keyboard ..

 

FULL CAP'S characters you've said a lot the last 4 yrs and we know you didn't mean it but you're not going to be needed anything like before so a lot of you are stood down .. 

 

Exclamation marks ! You will only be required in double configuration at most from now on .. no more being assembled in rows like matches to emphasise ridiculousness .. 

 

Small letters and characters get yourselves ready for you are now on standbye for assembly into recognised words of more than 8 characters and 2 syllables .. 

 

And Keyboard said " Amen " .. 

 

 

Don't forget that "Amen" is now banned in Wokeville.  Whether they allow "Awomen" I'm not sure.

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

In the U.S., people generally have freedom of speech at large (though not necessarily on privately run commercial platforms like Facebook and Twitter).

 

But even at large, that legally protected freedom of speech doesn't include the right to, as the legal history illustrates, yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  When a person starts inciting armed insurrection against the U.S. government, they're going to end up having their free speech in prison.

 

 

Is that not how it's supposed to work? 

 

Speak your mind, but get ready to deal with the consequences if your speech breaks the law. 

 

It's a sensible situation these days, but I still think we have to be careful not to choose the path of censorship. 

11 minutes ago, Virt said:

It's a sensible situation these days, but I still think we have to be careful not to choose the path of censorship. 

 

The U.S. Constitution says the government, with narrow exceptions, can't suppress free speech.  Those same constitutional protections don't, and have never, applied to commercial business platforms/settings, e.g., social media.

 

But even if they DID, Trump was this week, and has in the past, been yelling political "fire" in a crowded theater. He was long overdue for a shutdown, no matter which arena he was operating in.

 

There's no free speech principal in the U.S. that protects that kind of violence-inducing, attempted insurrection incitement.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

Is that not how it's supposed to work? 

 

Speak your mind, but get ready to deal with the consequences if your speech breaks the law. 

 

It's a sensible situation these days, but I still think we have to be careful not to choose the path of censorship. 

If censorship saves lives, then it must be done.  Better to save a live than save a word.

The former member of 'elite strikeforce team', sidney powell, who is being sued by Dominion for $1.3 billion, was banned from Twitter, too.

 

To one of her posts someone responded, "How do we rise up?"

 

She replied, "swarm the State Capitol, Congress"

 

The disgraced felon mike flynn re-tweeted her response.  Twitter banned flynn, too.

 

As for 45, here's how Twitter is playing Whack-a-Mole with him:

 

-banned his acct forever

-suspended the official POTUS acct when he tried to use that

-suspended his official campaign acct when he went to that

-suspended his campaign digital chief, a guy named gary coby, when 45 tried that acct

14 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Luckily, Twitter doesn't agree with you.  Guaranteed, some very smart people made this decision, and for very good reasons.  Propagation of lies shouldn't be allowed on any media platform.  Too many aren't smart enough to research the truth. 

 

You are aware someone died because of fake news from Q?  So you are OK with that?

 

Read this and get back to us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/protests-trump-disinformation.html?smid=tw-share

 

 

No off course I'm not ok with protesters and police dying, and you know that from other posts. 

That's a cheap shot... 

 

But if we take away peoples rights to speak their mind, we're walking on dangerous grounds. 

 

Who decide what is right or wrong. 

 

Wouldn't it be ironic if Trump's now forced to use Tiktok to get his divisive lies across?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

The former member of 'elite strikeforce team', sidney powell, who is being sued by Dominion for $1.3 billion, was banned from Twitter, too.

 

To one of her posts someone responded, "How do we rise up?"

 

She replied, "swarm the State Capitol, Congress"

 

The disgraced felon mike flynn re-tweeted her response.  Twitter banned flynn, too.

 

As for 45, here's how Twitter is playing Whack-a-Mole with him:

 

-banned his acct forever

-suspended the official POTUS acct when he tried to use that

-suspended his official campaign acct when he went to that

-suspended his campaign digital chief, a guy named gary coby, when 45 tried that acct

 

To your knowledge does the above expose Powell and Flynn to prosecution?

 

3 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

No off course I'm not ok with protesters and police dying, and you know that from other posts. 

That's a cheap shot... 

 

But if we take away peoples rights to speak their mind, we're walking on dangerous grounds. 

 

Who decide what is right or wrong. 

 

What's wrong is misinformation online that leads to deaths.  That's wrong, not right.

13 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

Wouldn't it be ironic if Trump's now forced to use Tiktok to get his divisive lies across?

 

 

Maybe there still is an executive order lying around banning TikTok.

18 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

As for 45, here's how Twitter is playing Whack-a-Mole with him:

 

-banned his acct forever

-suspended the official POTUS acct when he tried to use that

-suspended his official campaign acct when he went to that

-suspended his campaign digital chief, a guy named gary coby, when 45 tried that acct

 

It kinda sounds like a drug addict who's off the sauce... Gotta find a fix somewhere... If my regular supplier isn't available, go to a friend, or this or that person... Desperate for a Twitter fix.

 

About fricking time.

16 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

No off course I'm not ok with protesters and police dying, and you know that from other posts. 

That's a cheap shot... 

 

But if we take away peoples rights to speak their mind, we're walking on dangerous grounds. 

 

Who decide what is right or wrong. 

 

The owners of the platform decide.

How is it dangerous grounds to ban people who ask for violence.

 

Who would decide inciting riots against congress was right?

 

No one is taking away his right to speak, lots of websites will allow it, but maybe not after his new executive order which he basically shut himself down.

 

Thats the funny part. He gets annoyed at twitter for removing him so signs an order which makes them have to remove him. What an idiot.

6 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

What's wrong is misinformation online that leads to deaths.  That's wrong, not right.

 

Misinformation online are probably one of those major downsides of living in a globalised internet connected world, but then it's important to correct that misinformation and that's not done by silencing people. 

 

We have different opinions about this subject and that's fine, and I respect your opinion and that's how it's supposed to be.

1 hour ago, Virt said:

 

 

So yeah, I think Twitter made a wrong decision. 

Well with the new execitive order they now have to ban him. He shut himself up.

2 minutes ago, Virt said:

 

Misinformation online are probably one of those major downsides of living in a globalised internet connected world, but then it's important to correct that misinformation and that's not done by silencing people. 

 

We have different opinions about this subject and that's fine, and I respect your opinion and that's how it's supposed to be.

Its not misinformation to incite violence.

22 minutes ago, Virt said:

But if we take away peoples rights to speak their mind, we're walking on dangerous grounds.

I believe you are making the same mistake many make.

 

You DO have the right to speak your mind in public and public forums.

 

You DO NOT have the same right on privately owned platforms.

The USA should adopt Thailand's internet missuse laws. DT locked up for lesse majesty infringements? Wait a minute he thinks he is King of the Americas!

7 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I believe you are making the same mistake many make.

 

You DO have the right to speak your mind in public and public forums.

 

You DO NOT have the same right on privately owned platforms.

 

Point taken. 

 

It's their right to remove people from their platforms. 

 

I was just questioning if it was the right decision. 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well with the new execitive order they now have to ban him. He shut himself up.

 

Thanks for putting in a succinct nutshell the irony of what I was trying to point out above with Trump's anti-social media crusade and exec order vs. their recent decisions to ban him.

 

I think HIS intent from the EO was to make it easier for the various nutjob brigades to sue social media platforms complaining they had been discriminated against. But it also works the other way when someone like him starts tweeting for violence and insurrection. They'd be even moreso on the hook legally without their still current immunity protections.

 

(The EO didn't revoke this, just urged the federal agencies to explore it, and the Senate didn't act on the related legislation, AFAIK).

 

 

this word "permanent" is incorrect.  If re-elected, then we'll see.....  

 

no coincidence Dems took over and he got "permanently" banned, which I think is a good idea now.

 

but words like always and never and permanent is rather comical.

 

i hope he doesn't create a "twitter-like" platform and get 70,000,000 nutjobs on there

1 minute ago, Ventenio said:

i hope he doesn't create a "twitter-like" platform and get 70,000,000 nutjobs on there

They already have that in Parler, though Google just removed it from their app store, and Apple has threatened they might do the same. 

The problem though with a right or left wing centered service like that though is you would just be talking in an echo chamber. A lot of the political discord on social media is people wanting to argue their points or to troll those who disagree with them. You don't have anyone to troll or argue with though if everyone agrees with you.

I think it's an over-reaction, taking away his constitutional right to express himself on Twitter, and now Nancy has gone full crazy ????

 

you have to admit it's a splendid exit for a POTUS ????

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

taking away his constitutional right to express himself on Twitter,

 

He has no constitutional right to express himself on Twitter. Time to brush up on U.S. law on the subject.

 

The constitutional right is not limited to the press, or public speaking or even digital platforms, so not sure why you could claim that Twitter is different. They are basically shutting down his right of speech. This is a dangerous trend. And this doesn't only address Trump but also future participants who might be censored under public or even political pressure.

 

Trump might sound like an irrational fool on Twitter, but it's his right to be, and terminating his account is sending a very dangerous signal for the future.

Bit late for that, damage already done in estimated 57,000 tweets.

12 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

The constitutional right is not limited to the press, or public speaking or even digital platforms, so not sure why you could claim that Twitter is different. They are basically shutting down his right of speech. This is a dangerous trend. And this doesn't only address Trump but also future participants who might be censored under public or even political pressure.

 

Trump might sound like an irrational fool on Twitter, but it's his right to be, and terminating his account is sending a very dangerous signal for the future.

Oh dear.

 

Twitter is not the govt, it can decide who is on it. Free speech is that the govt cannot stop you.

 

If you set up a platform you solely decide who you allow. Its always been that way. So no, its not a slippery slope.

 

You may think everyone who asks to go on fox news must be allowed, but they arent.

 

Public and private companies are not subject to the free speech. Only the govt is.

16 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Trump might sound like an irrational fool on Twitter, but it's his right to be, and terminating his account is sending a very dangerous signal for the future.

 

The 1st Amendment free speech provisions in the U.S. Constitution say the GOVERNMENT shall enact no law .... abridging free speech (subject to various court rulings thru the years).

 

It doesn't say anything about private businesses doing so.  Try telling your U.S. private employer that you have protected free speech to say anything about them that you want.... Welcome to the unemployment line.