What's new
By:
Filters

Whistle blower releases video with Twitter CEO

Landslide

Landslide

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
422
Messages
1,664
I’m not a Twitter user but have followed different links to some shit that gets posted on it from time to time. I never read any of trumps tweets and always laugh at fools that bitch about whatever shit he post up on it. If you don’t like it then don’t read it, pretty easy right, you’d think but still idiots still whine about that.

While I never followed or read trumps Twitter post I don’t agree with them shutting him off along with the rest of the social media. It’s not my call but I don’t like suppression of freedom of speech. It’s one of the main reasons I love this place.

so a whistle blower realest a video of Twitter CEO talking about going farther after they shut trump down. I get it that’s a private business and all that. They do get special privileges so they can’t be sued. I feel if they want to play this game they should loose that protection. Not that I have any control over that but just saying.

I know people are leaving places like that so hopefully it hits them where it really hurts.

one thing too is why are all the social media platforms out there as well as web host all leftest owned? It sure seems that way anyway.
 
Landslide said:
I’m not a Twitter user but have followed different links to some shit that gets posted on it from time to time. I never read any of trumps tweets and always laugh at fools that bitch about whatever shit he post up on it. If you don’t like it then don’t read it, pretty easy right, you’d think but still idiots still whine about that.

While I never followed or read trumps Twitter post I don’t agree with them shutting him off along with the rest of the social media. It’s not my call but I don’t like suppression of freedom of speech. It’s one of the main reasons I love this place.

so a whistle blower realest a video of Twitter CEO talking about going farther after they shut trump down. I get it that’s a private business and all that. They do get special privileges so they can’t be sued. I feel if they want to play this game they should loose that protection. Not that I have any control over that but just saying.

I know people are leaving places like that so hopefully it hits them where it really hurts.

one thing too is why are all the social media platforms out there as well as web host all leftest owned? It sure seems that way anyway.
Click to expand...


for fun. Consider that they aren't. What if they aren't. Think about that. What if they are pro business and conservative and yet they do this stuff.
 
I think it’s wrong to consider this 1st amendment. Trump can’ still say whatever he wants. A private business has decided not to try to make money by broadcasting it.

it’s funny all the pro business conservatives are against this. Let the market handle this.
 
Rangerrod said:
I think it’s wrong to consider this 1st amendment. Trump can’ still say whatever he wants. A private business has decided not to try to make money by broadcasting it.

it’s funny all the pro business conservatives are against this. Let the market handle this.
Click to expand...

Within boundaries, you are correct. Except, should ATT be able to censor potus on their cell/land lines?

some people are arguing that Twitter and FB are utility, now. Maybe, maybe not.
 
Rangerrod said:
I think it’s wrong to consider this 1st amendment. Trump can’ still say whatever he wants. A private business has decided not to try to make money by broadcasting it.

it’s funny all the pro business conservatives are against this. Let the market handle this.
Click to expand...

That might have been a valid argument right up until they ruled against the baker in Colorado. Fuck em.
 
Rangerrod said:
I think it’s wrong to consider this 1st amendment. Trump can’ still say whatever he wants. A private business has decided not to try to make money by broadcasting it.

it’s funny all the pro business conservatives are against this. Let the market handle this.
Click to expand...

Problem is that conservatives are WEAK. So many of the ones I know still have Facebook and Twitter accounts. My wife won’t even let me cancel Amazon services.

So no, the market won’t be conservatives won’t cancel them.
 
FleshEater said:
Problem is that conservatives are WEAK. So many of the ones I know still have Facebook and Twitter accounts. My wife won’t even let me cancel Amazon services.

So no, the market won’t be conservatives won’t cancel them.
Click to expand...

So it begs the question, where are the alternatives? We have already seen up and coming alternatives bite the bullet at the hands of the conglomerates.... I have no desire to support Amazon, and they keep stifling and eating the competition for lunch. Are they a monopoly now? Or just a great business model that is crushing the competition? I am pro business and free market. What these companies are doing, however, isn't promoting a "FREE" market.
 
flecker said:
So it begs the question, where are the alternatives? We have already seen up and coming alternatives bite the bullet at the hands of the conglomerates.... I have no desire to support Amazon, and they keep stifling and eating the competition for lunch. Are they a monopoly now? Or just a great business model that is crushing the competition? I am pro business and free market. What these companies are doing, however, isn't promoting a "FREE" market.
Click to expand...

The alternative concerning buying stuff is going to other companies offering whatever you need.

Online communication? I don’t know.
 
Rangerrod said:
I think it’s wrong to consider this 1st amendment. Trump can’ still say whatever he wants. A private business has decided not to try to make money by broadcasting it.

it’s funny all the pro business conservatives are against this. Let the market handle this.
Click to expand...

Almost as funny as how neutral your posts about Trump usually aren't.
 
Mr Stubs said:
There isn’t a free market now.
Click to expand...

I agree and it was more or less my point... In the same way there is no longer a "Free" press. It's been said many times and ignored, but there are literally a few corporate owned news conglomerates. There is no diversity, though it is slightly changing... it isn't exactly for the best. Gone are the days of fact based news, and let the end reader make up their own mind. Business seems to be following the same path.
 
All you people saying it's ok, do you think it's ok for the phone company to shut down your phone service because they don't like your politics?
Or the mail to stop delivering your mail because they don't like your politics?

Back in the days we chiseled on stone. Then we sent letters carried by horses. Then the phone came along. And now...twitter and other social media are the future equivalent of standard communication, like mail and like phone.

Twitter = phone = mail and they should all be regulated the same.
 
Yota Up said:
All you people saying it's ok, do you think it's ok for the phone company to shut down your phone service because they don't like your politics?
Or the mail to stop delivering your mail because they don't like your politics?

Back in the days we chiseled on stone. Then we sent letters carried by horses. Then the phone came along. And now...twitter and other social media are the future equivalent of standard communication, like mail and like phone.

Twitter = phone = mail and they should all be regulated the same.
Click to expand...

yet i get by just fine not using twitter or FB :homer:

the mail is paid for by tax
 
Rangerrod said:
. A private business has decided not to try to make money by broadcasting it.
Click to expand...

That is part of the 230 publisher/provider arguement

Are they a publisher? If they are then they have a responcibility to post things that are factualy accurate and suffer the consiquences for theyre mistakes but it also gives them the right to post/not post/cencor the content.

Or are they a provider of a service? You or your friends post whatever you choose but at your own risk/reward and they shouldnt be allowed to touch it at all. They benifit financialy off of your effort but are providing the means.

They can set guidelines as to what theyll allow because its thier platform. I dont know that anyone is truely argueing otherwise but the gigantic issue is that those guidelines are being blatantly applied with a massive bias.



It comes down to who has a couple of billion $$ and is willing to fund a server farm that isnt going to be a white guilt liberal and willing to take the absolute personal life destroying asswhooping the world is to try to lay on them. The silicon valley and every person on both sides is going hate that person for any thousand reasons and it will be a shit show every single time that person sets foot anywhere or makes any sort of opinion public.

I cant imagine any worse job than being the president but im pretty sure that would be one of them.
 
Rangerrod said:
. . . it’s funny all the pro business conservatives are against this. Let the market handle this.
Click to expand...

Ummm . . . consider what we have just witnessed in the past week. Competitors to the huge social media companies started gaining traction then the established players colluded to shut them down.

This is a case study in why anti-trust law exists. Too bad it has not been enforced for decades.
 
Forums are my only Social Media outlet. I was a member at a couple brand specific sites, and I guess I still am, but I'm only really active here, the Ford one and my racing forums.

Now, with that said... Twitter, Facebook, etc. are, technically, free to do as they will. The speech itself isn't being infringed on per se, the platform to broadcast it on is. If it's a violation of their user agreement, then so be it. You know the rules and if you actively break them, tough shit.

HOWEVER, my problem, and theirs I hope, is if you craft said user agreement in such a way as to prohibit any speech you don't agree with. If your users opinion doesn't jive with yours as a company and you throw them out, then all you're left with is a platform of conformity instead of a platform of discussion. Basically your user agreement is conform to our way of thinking or you can't use this. That is clear bullshit but I'm not sure if it's actual infringement of speech... It's damn close to the edge though. This is all a slippery slope. I don't personally agree with any of it and the tech companies have WAY too much power to dictate what can and can't be written.

Between Google, Amazon and Apple, there's little that they don't touch, which is frightening.
 
Free market got destroyed by lock downs, the .govs at all levels picked winners and losers via mandates and $$$$$

I hate regulation, but I fear it's time to break up the tech giants. We all know the .gov will fuck it all up and pick winners and losers. There's no clear fair way out.

Maybe they could take the EPA and change the E to T for Technology and keep all the retards busy for a while.
 
gladman said:
for fun. Consider that they aren't. What if they aren't. Think about that. What if they are pro business and conservative and yet they do this stuff.
Click to expand...

You mean like this site? Which still lets you post your reterded shit?
 
Landslide said:
I get it that’s a private business and all that. They do get special privileges so they can’t be sued. I feel if they want to play this game they should loose that protection. Not that I have any control over that but just saying.
Click to expand...

So by that logic, anyone who gets banned for violating the rules here should be able to sue Austin over it?
 
Rangerrod said:
I think it’s wrong to consider this 1st amendment. Trump can’ still say whatever he wants. A private business has decided not to try to make money by broadcasting it.

it’s funny all the pro business conservatives are against this. Let the market handle this.
Click to expand...

Except you have the former First Lady, acting senators, and acting representatives calling on a private company to ban the censor the speech. Then they did. Basically representatives of the government signaled to the companies they would be protected by them if they would censor even thought they are not a publisher. To me, this is the issue. Along with multiple entities I believe collaborating to shut down any competition. They claim to not be a publisher Nd are protected by 230, yet the reason they banned trump has been proven to not be applied equally across their platform. Therefor they should be stripped of their 230 protection and I open to lawsuits from all the victims from this summers violence that people openly advocated for on Twitter, including the VP elect.
 
And it's looking like Parler got booted off Amazon because they didn't want Trump to have a voice there because he won't play ball with China when they are using slave labor and lo and behold, Trump cuts China off anyway.
 
Red75bronco said:
what if one member gets banned for violating the rules and others violate the rules and do not.
Click to expand...

Then that person gets banned for violating the rules. And by linkslide's logic they should be able to sue over it because hurt feelers or something.
 
Filthy McChevy said:
And it's looking like Parler got booted off Amazon because they didn't want Trump to have a voice there because he won't play ball with China when they are using slave labor and lo and behold, Trump cuts China off anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was totally that and had absolutely nothing to do with the talk of sedition, murder, and the planning of the capitol riot that went on there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh