Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-facebook-and-instagram-accounts-blocked-indefinitely-zuckerberg-says-12181662 " He will move to Gab, or whatever it's called. The one people who are banned from Twitter etc usually end up. Disclaimer: I'm not arguing with you, I'm not interested in semantic errors I may have made. I'm not saying anything other than what I'm saying. I think there is a genuinely interesting conversation to be had about private companies choosing to censor individuals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-facebook-and-instagram-accounts-blocked-indefinitely-zuckerberg-says-12181662 He will move to Gab, or whatever it's called. The one people who are banned from Twitter etc usually end up. Disclaimer: I'm not arguing with you, I'm not interested in semantic errors I may have made. I'm not saying anything other than what I'm saying. I think there is a genuinely interesting conversation to be had about private companies choosing to censor individuals. " The duty of care of those companies is to protect democracy . . . The Homeland Securities Act. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-facebook-and-instagram-accounts-blocked-indefinitely-zuckerberg-says-12181662 He will move to Gab, or whatever it's called. The one people who are banned from Twitter etc usually end up. Disclaimer: I'm not arguing with you, I'm not interested in semantic errors I may have made. I'm not saying anything other than what I'm saying. I think there is a genuinely interesting conversation to be had about private companies choosing to censor individuals. The duty of care of those companies is to protect democracy . . . The Homeland Securities Act. " How do they decide what is and isn't causing a danger to democracy. Presumably it's based on number of followers. How influencial the person is? They already had special rules in to allow Trump to continue to use Twitter, where others would have been banned for inciting violence. This is an issue I'm genuinely undecided on. In general, I'm not in favour of silencing anyone. But these are private companies, so have no duty to allow anyone to say anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-facebook-and-instagram-accounts-blocked-indefinitely-zuckerberg-says-12181662 He will move to Gab, or whatever it's called. The one people who are banned from Twitter etc usually end up. Disclaimer: I'm not arguing with you, I'm not interested in semantic errors I may have made. I'm not saying anything other than what I'm saying. I think there is a genuinely interesting conversation to be had about private companies choosing to censor individuals. The duty of care of those companies is to protect democracy . . . The Homeland Securities Act. How do they decide what is and isn't causing a danger to democracy. Presumably it's based on number of followers. How influencial the person is? They already had special rules in to allow Trump to continue to use Twitter, where others would have been banned for inciting violence. This is an issue I'm genuinely undecided on. In general, I'm not in favour of silencing anyone. But these are private companies, so have no duty to allow anyone to say anything. " The TOC of any private company can forbid use of its platform for any reason it sees fit. But use of a platform can also be a statutory duty in Law - In short there is no Force Majeure for inciting violence by act of encouragement and those who actually performed it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People have an odd nation about what freedom of speech means: Swear at a Police Officer and when he tells you to desist he will ask you one more time and if you don't he will arrest you. " With you on this - I’d also like to chant “LOCK HIM UP” a few times, it has a ring to it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People have an odd nation about what freedom of speech means: Swear at a Police Officer and when he tells you to desist he will ask you one more time and if you don't he will arrest you. With you on this - I’d also like to chant “LOCK HIM UP” a few times, it has a ring to it "lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People have an odd nation about what freedom of speech means: Swear at a Police Officer and when he tells you to desist he will ask you one more time and if you don't he will arrest you. " Everything you say potentially has consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from rebuke or freedom from consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People have an odd nation about what freedom of speech means: Swear at a Police Officer and when he tells you to desist he will ask you one more time and if you don't he will arrest you. Everything you say potentially has consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from rebuke or freedom from consequences." This! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People have an odd nation about what freedom of speech means: Swear at a Police Officer and when he tells you to desist he will ask you one more time and if you don't he will arrest you. Everything you say potentially has consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from rebuke or freedom from consequences." This.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. " "If someone disagrees they need to out up a better argument". This is good in theory. But people with a better argument might not have the same audience. For example more people read Trump's anti science posts. Than read posts by scientists. If you owned a social media company, or if someone expressed views that you strongly disagreed with, that you thought were detrimental to society. What would your feelings be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. "If someone disagrees they need to out up a better argument". This is good in theory. But people with a better argument might not have the same audience. For example more people read Trump's anti science posts. Than read posts by scientists. If you owned a social media company, or if someone expressed views that you strongly disagreed with, that you thought were detrimental to society. What would your feelings be?" Time to sell up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. "If someone disagrees they need to out up a better argument". This is good in theory. But people with a better argument might not have the same audience. For example more people read Trump's anti science posts. Than read posts by scientists. If you owned a social media company, or if someone expressed views that you strongly disagreed with, that you thought were detrimental to society. What would your feelings be?" By that reasoning if you owned a media company you would ban anyone endorsing Brexit wouldn't you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. "If someone disagrees they need to out up a better argument". This is good in theory. But people with a better argument might not have the same audience. For example more people read Trump's anti science posts. Than read posts by scientists. If you owned a social media company, or if someone expressed views that you strongly disagreed with, that you thought were detrimental to society. What would your feelings be? By that reasoning if you owned a media company you would ban anyone endorsing Brexit wouldn't you? " By what reasoning? I was asking a question to someone else to see what their thought would be. Because I found Thier point interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. " Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" By that reasoning if you owned a media company you would ban anyone endorsing Brexit wouldn't you? " Can't see that the Remain Campaign had a page just for Leavers lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. "If someone disagrees they need to out up a better argument". This is good in theory. But people with a better argument might not have the same audience. For example more people read Trump's anti science posts. Than read posts by scientists. If you owned a social media company, or if someone expressed views that you strongly disagreed with, that you thought were detrimental to society. What would your feelings be?" If people disagree with trump's posts cant they reply to.him on either platform? I'm not on either as I think they are full of hate. I might be tempted to ban people I disagree with but isnt that proof of my point, social media owners cant be the judge of content, let's say trump owned twitter or facebook and banned those who disagreed with him, yes he is bonkers but who decides what's free speech and what's banned, to me that is down to the courts not individual companies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. " So in that case should remain voters leave the uk because they dont like what the majority decided. It's funny how all those shouting about free speech only seem to want it when they agree with what's being said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. So in that case should remain voters leave the uk because they dont like what the majority decided. It's funny how all those shouting about free speech only seem to want it when they agree with what's being said." How does that work? Are you expecting non Tory voters to leave the UK as well? If you have a problem with ‘your version’ of free speech being banned on Twitter then I suggest you don’t use it, try Parler instead | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. So in that case should remain voters leave the uk because they dont like what the majority decided. It's funny how all those shouting about free speech only seem to want it when they agree with what's being said. How does that work? Are you expecting non Tory voters to leave the UK as well? If you have a problem with ‘your version’ of free speech being banned on Twitter then I suggest you don’t use it, try Parler instead "Trump signed up for parler just as his Twitter ban hit..... he will say his freedom of speech is being violated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. So in that case should remain voters leave the uk because they dont like what the majority decided. It's funny how all those shouting about free speech only seem to want it when they agree with what's being said. How does that work? Are you expecting non Tory voters to leave the UK as well? If you have a problem with ‘your version’ of free speech being banned on Twitter then I suggest you don’t use it, try Parler instead "You said if you dont like then leave the platform, so it follows if you dont like the government leave the country, both are just as ridiculous. You either have free speech or you dont, it's not down to you,I or the owners to say what's allowed, that's the courts job and theirs alone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. "If someone disagrees they need to out up a better argument". This is good in theory. But people with a better argument might not have the same audience. For example more people read Trump's anti science posts. Than read posts by scientists. If you owned a social media company, or if someone expressed views that you strongly disagreed with, that you thought were detrimental to society. What would your feelings be? If people disagree with trump's posts cant they reply to.him on either platform? I'm not on either as I think they are full of hate. I might be tempted to ban people I disagree with but isnt that proof of my point, social media owners cant be the judge of content, let's say trump owned twitter or facebook and banned those who disagreed with him, yes he is bonkers but who decides what's free speech and what's banned, to me that is down to the courts not individual companies." Interesting. Yeah I'm not sure who should judge the content. Twitter and Facebook take down what they deem to be hate speech, or anything that encourages violence. Obviously the courts can't read every social media post and decide what's what. In this example, people reply to Trump's posts. I could post a reply, no one would see it. Would get lost in the ocean of crap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. So in that case should remain voters leave the uk because they dont like what the majority decided. It's funny how all those shouting about free speech only seem to want it when they agree with what's being said. How does that work? Are you expecting non Tory voters to leave the UK as well? If you have a problem with ‘your version’ of free speech being banned on Twitter then I suggest you don’t use it, try Parler instead
You said if you dont like then leave the platform, so it follows if you dont like the government leave the country, both are just as ridiculous. You either have free speech or you dont, it's not down to you,I or the owners to say what's allowed, that's the courts job and theirs alone. "Do you vote for the Tories? If so did you leave the UK in 1997. Twitter is a privately owned company and they can apply any rules they like, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is freedom of speech?" It doesn’t exist, anyone who thinks they can say what they like to anyone they like is very naive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is freedom of speech?" In the UK: Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone pushing violence needs shutting up but as the trump post, which I've not seen seen some are borderline, hate speech can be the same, I just feel it's a dangerous line to go down, social media is great but also awful. To be honest I'm glad I'm not on any of these platforms" Do you think you have freedom of speech on here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone pushing violence needs shutting up but as the trump post, which I've not seen seen some are borderline, hate speech can be the same, I just feel it's a dangerous line to go down, social media is great but also awful. To be honest I'm glad I'm not on any of these platforms" I agree. I don't know where the line is. One of the Trump Tweets that was removed was a post calling for bombs to be dropped on Iran. Which was removed due to being incitement to violence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is freedom of speech? In the UK: Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”." Yup. Swear at a Policeman and see what happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. So in that case should remain voters leave the uk because they dont like what the majority decided. It's funny how all those shouting about free speech only seem to want it when they agree with what's being said. How does that work? Are you expecting non Tory voters to leave the UK as well? If you have a problem with ‘your version’ of free speech being banned on Twitter then I suggest you don’t use it, try Parler instead
You said if you dont like then leave the platform, so it follows if you dont like the government leave the country, both are just as ridiculous. You either have free speech or you dont, it's not down to you,I or the owners to say what's allowed, that's the courts job and theirs alone. "You do know that Fab polices the forums and can and does ban people. Why should other Social Media platforms be less responsible?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is freedom of speech?" Well the two that got trump in trouble yesterday during and post riot were not really a condemnation of what happened..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is freedom of speech?" That *the government* will not punish you for the expression of your views. It is never absolute, it is always curtailed (so in the US incitement to violence is prohibited). Social media platforms, employers, etc, are also not government and may set their own terms. Freedom of speech also means others may exercise their freedom of speech to criticise you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab stopped a thread about other swinging sites the other day that's censorship, but this is a tiny insignificant site that few know exists and fewer would visit. The other two sites are mega sized and billions use them, they are influencing people, also trump rightly orcwrongly is the POTUS, who next do they censor, farage, corbyn, Putin,boris, starmer ? Where does it end. " They're private businesses. They set terms of service like any other private business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab stopped a thread about other swinging sites the other day that's censorship, but this is a tiny insignificant site that few know exists and fewer would visit. The other two sites are mega sized and billions use them, they are influencing people, also trump rightly orcwrongly is the POTUS, who next do they censor, farage, corbyn, Putin,boris, starmer ? Where does it end. They're private businesses. They set terms of service like any other private business. " Exactly , why can’t people understand this  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab stopped a thread about other swinging sites the other day that's censorship, but this is a tiny insignificant site that few know exists and fewer would visit. The other two sites are mega sized and billions use them, they are influencing people, also trump rightly orcwrongly is the POTUS, who next do they censor, farage, corbyn, Putin,boris, starmer ? Where does it end. They're private businesses. They set terms of service like any other private business. Exactly , why can’t people understand this "Because it's inconvenient to their persecution narrative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab stopped a thread about other swinging sites the other day that's censorship, but this is a tiny insignificant site that few know exists and fewer would visit. The other two sites are mega sized and billions use them, they are influencing people, also trump rightly orcwrongly is the POTUS, who next do they censor, farage, corbyn, Putin,boris, starmer ? Where does it end. " Farage wouldnt be a great loss tbf. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab stopped a thread about other swinging sites the other day that's censorship, but this is a tiny insignificant site that few know exists and fewer would visit. The other two sites are mega sized and billions use them, they are influencing people, also trump rightly orcwrongly is the POTUS, who next do they censor, farage, corbyn, Putin,boris, starmer ? Where does it end. " Well, my point is all sites should be censoring to some extent. As public companies they are obliged to avoid defamatory and violence inspiring material. Do they do it consistently, nope. Should they, yes. In terms of the people you mention, it is clear that Farage, Boris, Putin & Corbyn have lied. I doubt Starmer has but I could be wrong. I would like liars of all political colour to be called out. People sadly believe the crap they see on social media and feel it is as qualified as something (or more so than) the BBC, Sky, Guardian, Times put through editorial review and publish. So yes, social media companies should apply ‘editorial’ review of content. If it is a liebit should be pulled down, if it incites violence it should be pulled down. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. If you lie, incite violence, defame then you should be held accountable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we're going to let the market decide, the market might decide it's not putting up with the hassle of having certain viewpoints on its platform." There's a huge market for hate speech. People make a living off it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we're going to let the market decide, the market might decide it's not putting up with the hassle of having certain viewpoints on its platform. There's a huge market for hate speech. People make a living off it." I'm aware. I'm not saying I agree with letting the market decide, tbh. But if you rely on private business for free speech, private business will set its terms as it sees fit) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. So in that case should remain voters leave the uk because they dont like what the majority decided. It's funny how all those shouting about free speech only seem to want it when they agree with what's being said. How does that work? Are you expecting non Tory voters to leave the UK as well? If you have a problem with ‘your version’ of free speech being banned on Twitter then I suggest you don’t use it, try Parler instead
You said if you dont like then leave the platform, so it follows if you dont like the government leave the country, both are just as ridiculous. You either have free speech or you dont, it's not down to you,I or the owners to say what's allowed, that's the courts job and theirs alone. "Erm, no, private companies have the right to determine and enforce their own policies of use. Going by your logic you'd take a posh restaurant to court to decide if their policy of barring entry without a tie is against your human rights or something ridiculous
Or how about taking Fab to court because they gave you a forum ban because you called someone something offensive, it's your freedom of speech after all  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we're going to let the market decide, the market might decide it's not putting up with the hassle of having certain viewpoints on its platform. There's a huge market for hate speech. People make a living off it." Farage has done bloody well out of it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. "If someone disagrees they need to out up a better argument". This is good in theory. But people with a better argument might not have the same audience. For example more people read Trump's anti science posts. Than read posts by scientists. If you owned a social media company, or if someone expressed views that you strongly disagreed with, that you thought were detrimental to society. What would your feelings be? If people disagree with trump's posts cant they reply to.him on either platform? I'm not on either as I think they are full of hate. I might be tempted to ban people I disagree with but isnt that proof of my point, social media owners cant be the judge of content, let's say trump owned twitter or facebook and banned those who disagreed with him, yes he is bonkers but who decides what's free speech and what's banned, to me that is down to the courts not individual companies." Funnily enough, part of the changes that Trump wanted to make to the budget bill (or whatever it's called, the one he was blocking that stopped anyone in government from being paid) was to remove existing protections that social media sites have against the nonsense that their users post. Instead he wanted to make the companies legally responsible for the truth of the information that their users post! However instead of realising that this would in fact _force_ twitter, facebook et al to stop him posting his lies and rubbish, in his twisted brain he believed it would force them to only allow posts that agreed with him. Yes Trump wanted a law which would force internet companies to only allow the truth to be published, and make them deny any platform to habitual liars and hate speech... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Funnily enough, part of the changes that Trump wanted to make to the budget bill (or whatever it's called, the one he was blocking that stopped anyone in government from being paid) was to remove existing protections that social media sites have against the nonsense that their users post. Instead he wanted to make the companies legally responsible for the truth of the information that their users post! However instead of realising that this would in fact _force_ twitter, facebook et al to stop him posting his lies and rubbish, in his twisted brain he believed it would force them to only allow posts that agreed with him. Yes Trump wanted a law which would force internet companies to only allow the truth to be published, and make them deny any platform to habitual liars and hate speech..." Totally incorrect I'm afraid. " Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) crafted Section 230 so website owners could moderate sites without worrying about legal liability. Amending or repealing Section 230 has become a priority for the Trump administration over the last few months. In May, Trump signed an executive order urging the Federal Communications Commission to reinterpret the law. The order came in response to Twitter fact-checking a tweet from Trump for the first time, over false claims made on voter fraud. That pressure has only grown in the wake of the election, as President Trump has continued to use social platforms to promote false evidence of fraudulent voting. " Trump wanted to remove the right of Social Media platforms of being able to moderate what people posted on their platforms. Trump wanted to take away Twitters ability to remove Trump's own lies of their platform. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have said it many times trump is bonkers imvho, others think he walks on water, it's not for me or them to say who is right, unless someone incites violence I believe they have a right to say what they want, if someone disagrees they need to pu up a better argument, just calling someone names isnt a better argument and banning peoples opinion is a very slippery slope, the chinese do it and look at their human rights record. Nobody has the right to ‘say what they want’ . Twitter , Facebook etc are privately owned companies, if you don’t like or agree with their policies go elsewhere. " That doesnt solve the arguement though that these are Platforms that are acting like Publishers, while getting the tax breaks afforded to Platforms in the US. There is an arguement that these platforms have also ascended past there original purpose and are now so large they should be treated as public utilities Its amazing that people think cyberpunk 2077, Black mirror and others are just fiction while we sleepwalking into Corporatocracy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The law is catching up to the technology, unfortunately. Are publishers obliged to publish everything? (I imagine many printing presses would go bankrupt)" As far as i know thats the point, a publisher chooses who they publish while a platform should not. Platforms pay less tax in the US system which is why they are fighting so hard to stay that way, but while acting like a publisher Twitter for example is a platform but will ban 'right' wing opinions while allowing the mirror image on left. You would be banned for praising Hitler for example but not Mao or Pol Pot. Joe Rogans Podcast with Tim Pool, Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde is quite a good discussion on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ In my honest opinion Social Media is a Cancer in general which has polorised and dehumised politics further than it was anyway | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter suspends account permanently..... follows Facebook and Instagram " Thank fuck for that! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter suspends account permanently..... follows Facebook and Instagram " Off to Parler for him... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter suspends account permanently..... follows Facebook and Instagram " So he's not responsible enough to have a Facebook or Twitter account. But he has access to the nuclear launch codes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently Donald Trump has just joined fab and will be posting regularly on the politics forum!" Donald won't be getting any meets with me  But i wonder whether we could organise a gang bang for him? Say half a dozen BBC's in a federal prison? He's supposed to enjoy some kinky stuff | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i never really got twitter. its a gloryfied message bored as far as i can see.bit like facebook was ok when it first appeared but over the years has just become full of angry people who think there making a difference.just my opinion other people will probably disagree.fabs is about the only thing approaching social media im signed up to so am probably a dinodaur to all you tech geeks" Twitter is a cesspool. I don't know what use it is to society. The issue is that people can be influencial on there, without knowing WTF they're talking about. For example, any random arsehole suddenly has an equally weighted opinion on viruses, as a virologist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i never really got twitter. its a gloryfied message bored as far as i can see.bit like facebook was ok when it first appeared but over the years has just become full of angry people who think there making a difference.just my opinion other people will probably disagree.fabs is about the only thing approaching social media im signed up to so am probably a dinodaur to all you tech geeks Twitter is a cesspool. I don't know what use it is to society. The issue is that people can be influencial on there, without knowing WTF they're talking about. For example, any random arsehole suddenly has an equally weighted opinion on viruses, as a virologist. " i really couldnt comment if its a cesspool or not as never been on it but from what ive heard about it .it does seem to do more harm than good | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him."Excellent news, he will have to join Parler | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler "The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
"O dear, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear, "It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
"Really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
Really? "So they are! OMG! He must be busting at the seams. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
"They are. They're saying that Parler needs to moderate more effectively. I'm ambivalent, but I think this will force action on the relationship between people/ speakers and hosts of speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
"It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs . "Or tolerate stuff that not even the First Amendment counts as free speech. Imagine that. Free speech has limits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs . "Please let the man enjoy his victim status. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Please let the man enjoy his victim status."He may enjoy his feelings. He is entitled to his feelings. Fortunately that has no real world consequences  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs . "Which is correct . Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged. Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Which is correct .
Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged.
Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years.
"Maybe very serious real world consequences beamed across the world and someone in the company thinking 'we don't want to have a hint of a association with that' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Which is correct .
Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged.
Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years.
"I have no idea, I haven’t been on Parler so I haven’t got a clue what it is like. Trump should have been banned from Twitter ages ago, I am just glad it has finally happened, nobody in his position should be allowed to tell blatant lies and incite violence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Which is correct .
Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged.
Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years.
"Publicity, public outrage hurts places like Apple and Google. "Oh shit we might need to do something, we didn't realise it was that bad" Reddit is a classic case of banning stuff when the media finds outrageous things, and not before (despite user complaints) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you're interested in the limits of free speech have a read of the following Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance" While good for the debating societies of the World . . . not not close to the practice of Nations and their Laws. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you're interested in the limits of free speech have a read of the following Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance" The idea of unlimited tolerance is a myth and a mythologised weapon. *Shrug* | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you're interested in the limits of free speech have a read of the following Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance" This is interesting stuff. My personal line is based on the thing being intolerated (is that a word?). If someone is intolerant of say Tommy Robinson and his message of race hate. I'm okay with that. Is someone is intolerant of people who look different, has different skin colour, is of a different nationality, sexual preference, gender etc. Then that kind of intolerance isn't cool. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Which is correct .
Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged.
Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years.
Maybe very serious real world consequences beamed across the world and someone in the company thinking 'we don't want to have a hint of a association with that'"Yes, that makes sense. However the really confusing part is when they don't disassociate themselves from similar “serious real world consequences “ China government post out promoting the ethnic cleansing, sterilisation and genocide of an ethnic minority group. Post doesn't even get a marker let alone being removed or the account being suspended. By not taking action are we to understand they are happy to associate themselves with this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Which is correct .
Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged.
Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years.
Maybe very serious real world consequences beamed across the world and someone in the company thinking 'we don't want to have a hint of a association with that'
Yes, that makes sense.
However the really confusing part is when they don't disassociate themselves from similar “serious real world consequences “
China government post out promoting the ethnic cleansing, sterilisation and genocide of an ethnic minority group. Post doesn't even get a marker let alone being removed or the account being suspended.
By not taking action are we to understand they are happy to associate themselves with this?
"Why not just say what about? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Which is correct .
Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged.
Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years.
Maybe very serious real world consequences beamed across the world and someone in the company thinking 'we don't want to have a hint of a association with that'
Yes, that makes sense.
However the really confusing part is when they don't disassociate themselves from similar “serious real world consequences “
China government post out promoting the ethnic cleansing, sterilisation and genocide of an ethnic minority group. Post doesn't even get a marker let alone being removed or the account being suspended.
By not taking action are we to understand they are happy to associate themselves with this?
"Did they say why they didn't take this down? They justified leaving Trump on for the last four years, despite him consistently breaking their rules, was that his content was culturally significant. Because of who he was. Did they say something like this about the Chinese government post. I agree they need to be consistent though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban..." They're talking about limiting that to stop him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban... They're talking about limiting that to stop him." I just looked. Doesn't show any tweets on the POTUS account. Wasn't he told to use the official account on his office work phone instead of his personal account on his own mobile when he started the job anyway? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban... They're talking about limiting that to stop him. I just looked. Doesn't show any tweets on the POTUS account. Wasn't he told to use the official account on his office work phone instead of his personal account on his own mobile when he started the job anyway?" He was, but he didn't. Rules have been bent for him. Tweets have been removed from the POTUS account, I think, because he was using that (and supporter accounts and @TeamTrump) to circumvent the ban. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you're interested in the limits of free speech have a read of the following Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance" Interesting. To the best of my knowledge i have never read Karl Popper, but this has been one part of my personal philosophy for many years. Tolerance cannot tolerate the intolerant, because that causes the death of tolerance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban... They're talking about limiting that to stop him. I just looked. Doesn't show any tweets on the POTUS account. Wasn't he told to use the official account on his office work phone instead of his personal account on his own mobile when he started the job anyway?" Those tweets have been removed now. If you recall the 'lock her up bandwagon' when H Clinton used a personal account for email. He was also warned not to use a personal account on twitter . . . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban..." No... he tried that account last night and the tweet was deleted immediately.... Then he tried the political campaign Twitter account... and that was suspended... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban... They're talking about limiting that to stop him. I just looked. Doesn't show any tweets on the POTUS account. Wasn't he told to use the official account on his office work phone instead of his personal account on his own mobile when he started the job anyway? Those tweets have been removed now. If you recall the 'lock her up bandwagon' when H Clinton used a personal account for email. He was also warned not to use a personal account on twitter . . . " I do recall. I would be fired if I was found to have been using my personal devices, email or social media to discuss work related subjects. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban... No... he tried that account last night and the tweet was deleted immediately.... Then he tried the political campaign Twitter account... and that was suspended... " Presumably this has been done under the T&Cs of the platform and the rules around removed users reappearing via other accounts ? Or was it for the content of the tweets from these other accounts being considered to have broken the rules? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban... No... he tried that account last night and the tweet was deleted immediately.... Then he tried the political campaign Twitter account... and that was suspended... Presumably this has been done under the T&Cs of the platform and the rules around removed users reappearing via other accounts ? Or was it for the content of the tweets from these other accounts being considered to have broken the rules?" Ban evasion is a no no. Trump has been taunting Twitter for years to sanction him, they didn't because of the office he held. When people made twitter accounts to say what Trump said, they were banned without hesitation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently trumpy has started using the official presidential account now, the one he's ignored for 4 years. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the meaning of permanent ban... No... he tried that account last night and the tweet was deleted immediately.... Then he tried the political campaign Twitter account... and that was suspended... Presumably this has been done under the T&Cs of the platform and the rules around removed users reappearing via other accounts ? Or was it for the content of the tweets from these other accounts being considered to have broken the rules?" Probably both? Twitter have said in the past that they've given Trump a pass on rule breaking because of his position. Obviously he crossed their "special rules for Trump" line. Ban from social media site is tied to the person, not the account, and so follows you when you try to use different accounts (assuming you're caught, but the downside of fame is you'll be discovered quickly) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"apparently the head of the freedom of expression campaign, disgraced tory appointee, eugenicist and leading member of the 'shleep brigade' Toby Young has recruited a large group of students to form the base for his organisation only to then censure them for expressing centre left thought. how ironic and grossly hypocritical" There was a Telegraph journalist this week who tried to get a guy sacked for disagreeing with her. Where do you work, you're finished sort of stuff. She is/was part of Toby Young's free speech stuff. Funny that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"apparently the head of the freedom of expression campaign, disgraced tory appointee, eugenicist and leading member of the 'shleep brigade' Toby Young has recruited a large group of students to form the base for his organisation only to then censure them for expressing centre left thought. how ironic and grossly hypocritical There was a Telegraph journalist this week who tried to get a guy sacked for disagreeing with her. Where do you work, you're finished sort of stuff. She is/was part of Toby Young's free speech stuff. Funny that." Every accusation from the right wing is tantamount to a confession. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"apparently the head of the freedom of expression campaign, disgraced tory appointee, eugenicist and leading member of the 'shleep brigade' Toby Young has recruited a large group of students to form the base for his organisation only to then censure them for expressing centre left thought. how ironic and grossly hypocritical There was a Telegraph journalist this week who tried to get a guy sacked for disagreeing with her. Where do you work, you're finished sort of stuff. She is/was part of Toby Young's free speech stuff. Funny that. Every accusation from the right wing is tantamount to a confession." I'll take each instance as I find it, but advocating for free speech at the same time as harassing someone for disagreeing with you is *wild*. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Twitter have now banned Trumpy permanently
His dummy back in his mouth lol.
Gawd that must be painful for him.
Excellent news, he will have to join Parler
The tech companies are now removing Parler from their stores....
O dear,
It's almost like they don't want us to have the ability to read or comment on stuff they don't like....
It’s almost like they won’t tolerate people who break their T & Cs .
Which is correct .
Although it does become a little confusing when the platforms appear to promote and allow other divisive messaging to continue unchallenged.
Why remove the ability of people to access the Parler app now, after it has been made available unchallenged for over 2 years.
Maybe very serious real world consequences beamed across the world and someone in the company thinking 'we don't want to have a hint of a association with that'
Yes, that makes sense.
However the really confusing part is when they don't disassociate themselves from similar “serious real world consequences “
China government post out promoting the ethnic cleansing, sterilisation and genocide of an ethnic minority group. Post doesn't even get a marker let alone being removed or the account being suspended.
By not taking action are we to understand they are happy to associate themselves with this?
Did they say why they didn't take this down?
They justified leaving Trump on for the last four years, despite him consistently breaking their rules, was that his content was culturally significant. Because of who he was.
Did they say something like this about the Chinese government post.
I agree they need to be consistent though. "Well the fact they kept that Chinese post up in my opinion is just blatant hypocrisy. But that's Twitter in a nutshell. Can't upset the CCP now can we.. Let alone the Covid bullshit CCP spread around twitter or the paid wumao that spread propaganda and attack anyone critical of the CCP on every platform imaginable. Left wing calls for violence and doxxing is tolerated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
