Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account, cites 'incitement of violence' risk

[Nadia6]

JOKERS 

 

very slippery slope

[bobbin]

3 hours ago, Ventenio said:

 

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

As we have already seen, if Google and Apple will not host the app on their App stores, that would be an exercise in futility. And even though he has massive recent experience in "exercises in futility" he will end up with bupkiss.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

So, back to the swamp with the likes off Biden, Schumer and Pelosi. What a dismal prospect. 

But out of the cesspool that Trump slithered in. Really such nonsense. I remember that at the close of the Obama administration they had in the works a rule that required financial advisors to disclose if they were getting payments from the funds or corporations that they were recommending. One of the first things the Trump administration did was to kill that rule. How many people ended up being defrauded of their savings because of that? A relatively small thing in itself, but it foreshadowed how the Trump administration loosened the reins on the big banks and Wall Street.

[teacherclaire]

 

  You can't make such things up, can you?  ????

 

   An American President who gets suspended by some social media pages.

 

   Un- believable. ????

[teacherclaire]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But out of the cesspool that Trump slithered in. Really such nonsense. I remember that at the close of the Obama administration they had in the works a rule that required financial advisors to disclose if they were getting payments from the funds or corporations that they were recommending. One of the first things the Trump administration did was to kill that rule. How many people ended up being defrauded of their savings because of that? A relatively small thing in itself, but it foreshadowed how the Trump administration loosened the reins on the big banks and Wall Street.

Once there were two Superpowers.

 

One did all to become a banana republic by always choosing the wrong presidents and finally Mark Z.'s FB and Jack Dorsey's Twits decided to remove him from their social platforms. 

 

 No wonder why the greenback goes down. It ain't over till it's over. Innit? 

 

     

[Susco]

39 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I get where you're coming from.  You're all for free speech that you agree with.  But not so much free speech that you don't agree with. 

 

Twitter should have banned Trump long ago.  But because he was President, they gave him a pass.  Going forward, he's going to be treated like everyone else.  If that offends you...who cares.

 

While I fully agree with your second sentence, since Trump was posting right out lies and conspiracy theories, I have to disagree with your first sentence.

 

I was recently for 24 hours suspended from FB posting, because I had said that I saw some retards in the below picture.

 

That is not a lie or a conspiracy theory, neither is it instigating violence or whatever, it is just an expression of my personal feelings, and the ban was a limitation on my right of free speech.

 

 

 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

While I fully agree with your second sentence, since Trump was posting right out lies and conspiracy theories, I have to disagree with your first sentence.

 

I was recently for 24 hours suspended from FB posting, because I had said that I saw some retards in the below picture.

 

That is not a lie or a conspiracy theory, neither is it instigating violence or whatever, it is just an expression of my personal feelings, and the ban was a limitation on my right of free speech.

 

 

 

I suspect that FB has rules about verbal abuse.

[Russell17au]

18 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

While I fully agree with your second sentence, since Trump was posting right out lies and conspiracy theories, I have to disagree with your first sentence.

 

I was recently for 24 hours suspended from FB posting, because I had said that I saw some retards in the below picture.

 

That is not a lie or a conspiracy theory, neither is it instigating violence or whatever, it is just an expression of my personal feelings, and the ban was a limitation on my right of free speech.

 

 

 

Did you ever bother to check the rules on Facebook before you posted your post? Did you breach the Facebook rules? Facebook like every other private social media platform has rules on what is acceptable and if you breach those rules then you can be stopped from using that platform and that is not limiting your RIGHT to freedom of speech it is the platforms RIGHT to set the rules and it is your RESPONSIBILITY to abide by those rules.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Russell17au

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Did you ever bother to check the rules on Facebook before you posted your post? Did you breach the Facebook rules? Facebook like every other private social media platform has rules on what is acceptable and if you breach those rules then you can be stopped from using that platform and that is not limiting your RIGHT to freedom of speech it is the platforms RIGHT to set the rules and it is your RESPONSIBILITY to abide by those rules.

The problem is that lots of these people are clearly Marxists and don't believe in private ownership.

[Susco]

18 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Did you ever bother to check the rules on Facebook before you posted your post? Did you breach the Facebook rules? Facebook like every other private social media platform has rules on what is acceptable and if you breach those rules then you can be stopped from using that platform and that is not limiting your RIGHT to freedom of speech it is the platforms RIGHT to set the rules and it is your RESPONSIBILITY to abide by those rules.

 

It is my right of freedom to call someone a retard, or whatever, their rules are a restriction on my right of freedom of speech.

 

Do I harm anyone by calling him a retard.

 

By the way, look at the picture, it isn't telling any lies

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

It is my right of freedom to call someone a retard, or whatever, their rules are a restriction on my right of freedom of speech.

 

Do I harm anyone by calling him a retard.

 

By the way, look at the picture, it isn't telling any lies

Not on FB it isn't. You're not protected by the First Amendment there.

[Russell17au]

1 minute ago, Susco said:

 

It is my right of freedom to call someone a retard, or whatever, their rules are a restriction on my right of freedom of speech.

 

Do I harm anyone by calling him a retard.

 

By the way, look at the picture, it isn't telling any lies

You can do what you like in public but you have to obey the rules if you want to use a private platform. You have to abide by the platforms rules and if you do not like them then don't use them and go and have your rant out in public where you do not have the rules to obey. It does not matter what I see and personally think about the people in the photo, this is about the rules on Facebook which Facebook have the legal right to make and enforce and you as a member using that private platform have a responsibility of obeying those rules.

 

[RanongCat]

1 minute ago, Susco said:

 

It is my right of freedom to call someone a retard, or whatever, their rules are a restriction on my right of freedom of speech.

 

Do I harm anyone by calling him a retard.

 

By the way, look at the picture, it isn't telling any lies

As a student of Law I suggest you  failed to protect yourself because  you defamed the peoples in the illustration by direct declaration that they be "retards" with  no evidence of proof.

If you has said instead that in your personal opinion that you have formed a fixed opinion that these  people give yourself the  impression that they  are  retards you would have averted ban.

Accusation versus opinion. hahaha

 

 

[Susco]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not on FB it isn't. You're not protected by the First Amendment there.

 

Well I know there is some discussion going on in congress currently about this subject.

 

I haven't followed it, as US politics are not something I'm interested in, but isn't it about that exactly what they are discussing?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, RanongCat said:

As a student of Law I suggest you  failed to protect yourself because  you defamed the peoples in the illustration by direct declaration that they be "retards" with  no evidence of proof.

If you has said instead that in your personal opinion that you have formed a fixed opinion that these  people give yourself the  impression that they  are  retards you would have averted ban.

Accusation versus opinion. hahaha

 

 

I think the effectiveness of such stratagems depends on the jurisdiction.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Susco said:

 

Well I know there is some discussion going on in congress currently about this subject.

 

I haven't followed it, as US politics are not something I'm interested in, but isn't it about that exactly what they are discussing?

Trump actually vetoed the Defense Bill in order to revise the bill to compel social media companies not to censor speech. His veto was overruled by the House & Senate.

[Susco]

2 minutes ago, RanongCat said:

As a student of Law I suggest you  failed to protect yourself because  you defamed the peoples in the illustration by direct declaration that they be "retards" with  no evidence of proof.

If you has said instead that in your personal opinion that you have formed a fixed opinion that these  people give yourself the  impression that they  are  retards you would have averted ban.

Accusation versus opinion. hahaha

 

 

 

This was my post

 

 

In that photo I see a number of Neanderthals, or in other words, retarded Americans.

 

I clearly see the "I" in there, so that indicates that it is MY opinion. Not?

[RanongCat]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I think the effectiveness of such stratagems depends on the jurisdiction.

Please to  inform me of a jurisdiction that does  not include the  basis of my contribution?

I can concede some jurisdictions  may  dismiss  even if statute  but I am in reference to the  forum in my applications.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

This was my post

 

 

In that photo I see a number of Neanderthals, or in other words, retarded Americans.

 

I clearly see the "I" in there, so that indicates that it is MY opinion. Not?

You stated it as a fact, not an opinion.

[placeholder]

Just now, RanongCat said:

Please to  inform me of a jurisdiction that does  not include the  basis of my contribution?

I can concede some jurisdictions  may  dismiss  even if statute  but I am in reference to the  forum in my applications.

Well, Thailand for one. Even if you qualify it as being your opinion, you can still be sued. And most likely will lose.

[Susco]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

You stated it as a fact, not an opinion.

 

 

Maybe people should consider to get a degree in law studies before they use social media again.

 

One of the reasons why I have hated FB with a vengeance ever since it was created, but sometimes people can't avoid using it for some reasons

[placeholder]

Just now, Susco said:

 

 

Maybe people should consider to get a degree in law studies before they use social media again.

 

One of the reasons why I have hated FB with a vengeance ever since it was created, but sometimes people can't avoid using it for some reasons

Or maybe just don't engage in name calling. 

[RanongCat]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, Thailand for one. Even if you qualify it as being your opinion, you can still be sued. And most likely will lose.

Is maybe why TV is sensitive as a carriage of  such ?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, RanongCat said:

Is maybe why TV is sensitive as a carriage of  such ?

Exactly so.

Edit: Come to think of it, maybe not. At least in cases where members are being rude to each other. After all, we are anonymous. There it's done to avoid the nastiness that plagues so many fora. But when referencing persons or businesses by their actual names, yes.

Edited January 9, 2021 by placeholder

[CharlieH]

Posts removed.

 

Keep it civil and no name calling please.

[Seth1a2a]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

the likes off Biden

The 81+ million likes "of" the majority "of" voters in a Democracy put Biden in Office.

Trump can start his own kingdom in another reality where he and his 74 million sheep-like followers can surely be as happy as flies on a pile of dung. They'll eventually turn on each other and probably on him as well . 

 

 

Trump blocked from Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat after violence on Capitol Hill

https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-blocked-from-twitter-facebook-snapchat-after-violence-on-capitol-hill/

[GrandPapillon]

3 hours ago, RocketDog said:

You're trying to make it black and white. It's not, no matter what. 

it is when it comes to political free speech,

 

interesting reactions for the anti-Trump crowd, I bet they would threw away all those nice principles if it was their "man" in power

 

they are completely missing the point, I guess people don't deserve "free speech" after all ????

 

if channels and private organizations are censuring your free speech ability, what's left of it? just an empty promise

[GrandPapillon]

4 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

You still don't understand the constitution on free speech, it doesn't allow you to incense violence.

Trump didn't incense violence, it's you guys interpretation of it. And obviously Twitter, with a lot of public and political pressure.

 

Interesting that our core democracy principles are thrown out of the door by the same people who claim they cherish it

 

if you support Twitter, FB and Instagram censure, then you are not a free speech supporter

[GrandPapillon]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

So, do you believe Satanists should have the right to preach in any church?

that's what they do, and I surely don't like what they preach, yet they have a right to do so.

 

Some of you should go back to history and learn where we are coming from when it comes to free speech censure

[GrandPapillon]

5 hours ago, ThaidDown said:

When you signed up to Facebook, Twitter, TVF and all the other such sites you agreed to their terms and conditions. In doing so you voluntarily agreed to limit your 'freedom of speech'  so they are taking nothing away, you agreed to it,

 

If you want to fully exercise your rights to free speech you need your own site with your own rules.

they force you to agree if you want to use their service. It's actually an interesting question because there are new rules being worked on at the EU level to stop such practices. It has been going for over 20 years, and it's not "technically" legal to force you in such a way. Let's see what the EU will come up with that new regulations against such practice.

 

Fact remains that supporting such actions by Twitter is hardly a demonstration of supporting "free speech"