7000-1. Guess Who Won

[colfax_m]

Liar. You claimed that neither part of the MSM, yet they only post what they are told by the MSM. That makes them a part of it. Even one with limited intellect as you should be able to understand this.

You’re confusing me with someone else now. I can’t help you.

 

[Catman51]

You’re confusing me with someone else now. I can’t help you.

Citing your posts is confusing to you? Mental midget, aren't you?

BTW, you never could help anyone since you constantly lie.

 

[martybegan]

What's so special about social media? You said you wanted people to have access to Trump, they have it on his website.

It's a digital commons, for some the sole source of their news and information.

You are basically saying let corporations control totally one entire aspect of the media.

 

[colfax_m]

It's a digital commons, for some the sole source of their news and information.

You are basically saying let corporations control totally one entire aspect of the media.

I’m not. As I stated, Trump has a webpage. Anyone who can access Twitter can access Trump’s webpage. There’s no difference.

If people chose not to go to his website, why is that Twitter’s fault?

 

[martybegan]

I’m not. As I stated, Trump has a webpage. Anyone who can access Twitter can access Trump’s webpage. There’s no difference.

If people chose not to go to his website, why is that Twitter’s fault?

So only 1 candidate in a presidential election will be able to tweet to people, and twitter has a large share of the social media market.

You keep going back to webpages, and guess what? IT ISN'T THE ******* SAME

How about this, if Twitter wants to only allow one person running for President to use their platform, than any tweets by that candidate constitute a donation on twitters part to the campaign.

Because if you ban one candidate from your platform, that's what you are doing, contributing to their campaign.

 

[colfax_m]

So only 1 candidate in a presidential election will be able to tweet to people, and twitter has a large share of the social media market.

You keep going back to webpages, and guess what? IT ISN'T THE ******* SAME

How about this, if Twitter wants to only allow one person running for President to use their platform, than any tweets by that candidate constitute a donation on twitters part to the campaign.

Because if you ban one candidate from your platform, that's what you are doing, contributing to their campaign.

You said you want people to be able to access the candidate. I showed you they can access the candidate.

Why isn’t it the same?

 

[Catman51]

You said you want people to be able to access the candidate. I showed you they can access the candidate.

Why isn’t it the same?

You bigoted idiot. Trump is not the only one who has been banned, much as you pretend he is. His is not the only person to be banned. Political bans are affecting people from all conservative, or perceived conservative points of view that are being banned. Of course you are focused on Trump so he is the only one you cite.

This is how you name yourself to be a democratic moron and fool.

 

[martybegan]

You said you want people to be able to access the candidate. I showed you they can access the candidate.

Why isn’t it the same?

That isn't the same level of access and you know it.

One candidate being banned from twitter gives the other candidate and advantage, yes or no?

 

[colfax_m]

That isn't the same level of access and you know it.

One candidate being banned from twitter gives the other candidate and advantage, yes or no?

It’s the same level of access. If they can go to twitter’s website, they can go to Trump’s website.

What’s different?

Sure, it’s an advantage. If a candidate gets on Fox News whenever they want and have glowing praise from their hosts regularly, is that an advantage? Yes. That’s not grounds for restricting the freedom of speech on Fox News.

 

[martybegan]

It’s the same level of access. If they can go to twitter’s website, they can go to Trump’s website.

What’s different?

Sure, it’s an advantage. If a candidate gets on Fox News whenever they want and have glowing praise from their hosts regularly, is that an advantage? Yes. That’s not grounds for restricting the freedom of speech on Fox News.

Fox news doesn't have the share of social media twitter does, and again, not the same thing.

Just admit you want advantages for your candidate. All the trussed up corporate freedom crap is ******* bullshit.

 

[colfax_m]

Fox news doesn't have the share of social media twitter does, and again, not the same thing.

Just admit you want advantages for your candidate. All the trussed up corporate freedom crap is ******* bullshit.

You haven't explained why Trump or any other candidate needs Twitter when every candidate makes a website that people can access anytime they want.

Saying "it's not the same" isn't an explanation.

 

[colfax_m]

Fox news doesn't have the share of social media twitter does

Fox News has 44% of cable news marketshare.

Fox News tops yearly ratings rankings

Fox News was the most watched cable news channel in America for the sixth consecutive year in 2021. Fox averaged 1.3 million in total day viewers this year, compared to 919,000 at MS…

thehill.com

Twitter has 7% of social media marketshare.

Social Media Stats Worldwide | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the stats of social media worldwide based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

Not that I think the marketshare is relevant to first amendment rights, but your talking point is bullshit.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

I suspect that if the house next to mine painted a giant piece of "artwork" depicting this I would be happy for such rules.

View attachment 583044

Liberum iter ad inferos, $5.



Art like that takes a lot of work. I've tried it. I'm impatient.

 

[martybegan]

You haven't explained why Trump or any other candidate needs Twitter when every candidate makes a website that people can access anytime they want.

Saying "it's not the same" isn't an explanation.

Because again social media platforms and websites are two different things.

Social Media platforms are a new digital commons, websites are the equivalent of newspapers.

 

[martybegan]

Fox News has 44% of cable news marketshare.

Fox News tops yearly ratings rankings

Fox News was the most watched cable news channel in America for the sixth consecutive year in 2021. Fox averaged 1.3 million in total day viewers this year, compared to 919,000 at MS…

thehill.com

Twitter has 7% of social media marketshare.

Social Media Stats Worldwide | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the stats of social media worldwide based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

Not that I think the marketshare is relevant to first amendment rights, but your talking point is bullshit.

I noticed you ignore the fact that I say Facebook AND twitter repeatedly.

 

[colfax_m]

Because again social media platforms and websites are two different things.

Social Media platforms are a new digital commons, websites are the equivalent of newspapers.

They’re not that different. You wanted people to be able to access the candidate. Their website allows access.

What specifically is so essential about social media platforms that you need to violate the first amendment to force them to have candidates on them?

 

[colfax_m]

I noticed you ignore the fact that I say Facebook AND twitter repeatedly.

I noticed you ignore the fact that I say Facebook AND twitter repeatedly.

You didn’t in the post I responded to.

So does your tirade about violating the first amendment based on market share ONLY apply to Facebook since twitter doesn’t have much market share?

Also, how did you arrive at the conclusion that 44% market share wasn’t sufficiently high enough to warrant violating the first amendment?

 

[martybegan]

They’re not that different. You wanted people to be able to access the candidate. Their website allows access.

What specifically is so essential about social media platforms that you need to violate the first amendment to force them to have candidates on them?

They are inherently different, you go to a website to read or download something, usually larger bits of information. Things like twitter and facebook are blasts, interactive and designed to be like a discussion.

If you ban people running for office you effectively make it a one person race for people who only get their information from social media. They also have an advantage due to only their side being shown. They get to attack their opponent, the opponent can't defend on the same field.

 

[martybegan]

You didn’t in the post I responded to.

So does your tirade about violating the first amendment based on market share ONLY apply to Facebook since twitter doesn’t have much market share?

Also, how did you arrive at the conclusion that 44% market share wasn’t sufficiently high enough to warrant violating the first amendment?

One post. Many I have referenced both. Are you really going to be such an intellectually dishonest hack that you are going to use this tactic?

TV and social media are very different, a fact you refuse to acknowledge because it ruins your position.

 

[colfax_m]

They are inherently different, you go to a website to read or download something, usually larger bits of information. Things like twitter and facebook are blasts, interactive and designed to be like a discussion.

If you ban people running for office you effectively make it a one person race for people who only get their information from social media. They also have an advantage due to only their side being shown. They get to attack their opponent, the opponent can't defend on the same field.

But if people are only getting “one side” it’s not because they don’t have access to the other side.

That’s a personal choice.