- Apr 5, 2010
- Reaction score
Removing section 230 protection has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.Which is a clear violation of the first amendment.You’re supporting a government action for force Twitter to support your dear leader.What am i doing to stop you from spreading your idiocy?And you’re a fascist thug. Nice to meet you.Bullshit.Twitter has a ton of speech on it that I disagree with. I have no desire to see it banned.And of course, to you, unacceptable means "anything I disagree with politically"Uh, yes. That’s exactly what it means. If someone posts something with content that is unacceptable, the moderators remove it. It’s how it works on this forum too."Moderation".As their statement says, moderation is essential to keeping the platform viable.Being an open forum and having no limits on what you can post are two different things, and you know that.Twitter has never stated there are no limits to what you can post. You’re either lying or just making shut up.They claim to be an open forum, accepting all viewpoints, and yet the only viewpoints they seem to delete with any consistency are those from the right.Twitter removes an enormous amount of tweets for being hateful. No one removed Trump’s lying tweet. They just posted a link below it stating why they thought it wasn’t true. What’s ironic is that you’re all outraged that Twitter is using their freedom of expression to reply to Trump’s tweet.Yes, because progressive losers like you never post "hateful" or "lying" tweets.If your side wasn't posting so many lies and so much hate they wouldn't be getting banned.The only reason you support twitter in this is you know they only seem to gun for views you disagree with.Every business retains the right to toss out people based on a multitude of factors, especially individual behavior. That’s no different than what Twitter is doing. People have attempted to sue Twitter on grounds of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act and I believe they’ve always failed.The argument is Twitter owns this site to Twitter can do what the fuck they want.The rationale for public accommodation laws does not apply to social media websites.So legislation has nothing to do with other legislation built off the same premise?This has nothing to do with thatLike what LGBTQRSTUVs do with bakeries? Intimidate them like the thugs they are?Gaetz is virtue signaling. His little hissy fit has no chance at doing anything.
Second, if his bill did pass, the result would be the immediate removal of Trump from the platform.
The sole intention of this episode is to intimidate Twitter like the thugs they are.
This is not the same premise.
That argument doesn't also apply to other businesses wanting to do what they want?
Just like every other commie leftist out there, you have played both sides of the issue. How perfect.
Follow the rules.
If they want to take a side, they should have to say it, in writing. If they want to be a forum for open exchange they shouldn't be banning people for content based on their politics.
Twitter's own missions statement:
Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.
That’s precisely why they wrote section 230 in the first place. That’s why these websites even exist.
So that's how you explain content based bans and filtering.
Just admit it, you favor banning speech of people you don't like.
Have you ever seen a platform with the lack of moderation that you desire? They’re cesspools of racism, anti-semitism and generally fringe nonsense. No one wants that.
You are a censoring lying twat. FOAD.
Twitter has no obligation to pay to propagate idiots speech.
Twitter claims to be a discussion forum, and then takes sides in the discussion.
You don't care because it takes your side, filth.
The government won't be suing twitter, people will be.