Twitter is a business. The purpose is to make money. If Twitter thinks chucking some fringe right wing trolls off is good for business they’ll do so.The WHOLE purpose of twitter is to share their resources to people for them to utilize. There are terms of agreement in which this exchange of commerce takes place. Twitter gets to sell their eyeballs in exchange for the use of their resources.Im not stopping you from expressing your opinion but I will stick up for the rights of Twitter to refuse to participate in your speech. If you want to express such an opinion, do it on your own dime.My opinion and you response just shows you are a hateful bigot who refuses to let other people voice their opinions on anything they disagree with.Your opinion on the topic is irrelevant. It's Twitter's platform and they set the rules. They specifically say that type of rhetoric is not allowed and considered hateful speech against a group.No, it isn't. It's amazing how Nazi you assholes go to "protect" your cherished notions.Because it's targeted harassment of the transgendered community.How is it against the terms of service to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman?So the complaint is that you can’t use twitter to express your discrimination of transgendered individuals which is against the terms of service?You Can’t Say That on Twitter | National ReviewAlright then. Show me what has been censored.Progressives are the kings of "this is why we can't have nice things". Section 230 works when only used to weed out criminal or completely vulgar postings. But now you want to use it to silence opponents.Prodigy was sued for defamation by a bank because a poster on their message board accuses that bank of fraud. Prodigy was liable for that defamation.It's exactly why they wrote it. Why do you think they wrote it?You really think that the government wrote legislation that permitted internet companies to ignore individual specific threats?It's to stop someone from suing twitter for the threat made by another person.That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the goal be to allow internet companies immunity from reporting specific identifiable threats?Section 230 was to prevent something like someone tweeting "I am going to blow up a bridge" and then twitter being sued because they didn't do anything about it.That’s exactly the point of section 230 as I’ve been trying to tell you.Right now government action gives them immunity from liability because they claim people's posts are not "their content".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.
They then claim the right to moderate content based on whatever they feel like because it is 'their site", and thus their content.
They want the best of both worlds, and they should have to choose. Claim all content as theirs, moderate as they see fit, and then be liable for whatever they let through, or keep their protections as "not their content" and not moderate based on political, cultural, or moral viewpoints of their own.
You don’t want to take away their ability to moderate. You really don’t want that. Go to an unmoderated forum. It’s garbage. It’s an absolute cesspool.
It wasn't designed for Twitter to take sides in political debates and still claim the content isn't theirs.
You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Tweeter: "I am going to kill X"
20 min later, person X is killed by said tweeter.
230 stops the victim's family from suing twitter because they didn't call the cops.
That makes absolutely no sense.
What made Prodigy liable? They had moderators who removed posts that were insulting, off topic or harassment.
So it created a perverse incentive. The only way to avoid liability for the posts is to allow people to post basically whatever they wanted. It stopped anyone from trying to keep their Internet forums civil and that’s not what anyone wants.
Thus it has to go. All on you, none on us.
Certainly not President Snowflake. No one took down his idiotic tweets even when they do constitute harassment.
Sorry, but all you are doing is messing with the paint job and the fender, the DNA stays the same.
See? This is the issue, your side decides a viewpoint is ist/ic and thus verboten.
Is saying "Red Sox Suck" targeted harrassment of Bostonians?
All they are doing is pretending to be the opposite sex, hell a ton of them now don't even go with the surgeries.
That you agree with twitter on this just shows you are an SJW thug, and a cowardly one at that, because you let others do your dirty work for you.
Saying an obvious fact, i.e." you can't turn a man into a woman or vice versa in reality, you can just do it cosmetically, is 'hate speech" just shows you don't have an actual counter-argument.
That you think you have a right to Twitter’s resources for your own purposes makes you more akin to a communist.
God dam- think shit through, would you please?
You apparently have a comprehension problem or were just too lazy to finish reading the sentence.this is what happens when you run out of tv argument, first you pretend ["no one demanding trump quit twitter"] and then you contradict that very claim by claiming ["not an insignificant number of conservatives have the same opinion"]...now you must either ignore that contradiction and hope it goes away or torture bot logic and the truth to try and make that square peg fit in the round hole.No one demanding Trump quit Twitter (not an insignificant number of conservatives have that opinion too) has any threat of force.
I'm sure we both know the former is just make believe and the latter is your comprehension not mine...my claim is that it is the left demanding trump stop using twitter, your claim is that they don't have the power to make him stop which is an admission that they want him to stop but are powerless to do soYou apparently have a comprehension problem or were just too lazy to finish reading the sentence.
I don't demand that Rump stops using Twitter. He should be welcome to use Twitter till he turns Orange. Oh wait......... As a private Citizen. Let's make that happen in November. His posting is NOT the act of a President in any way shape or form.I'm sure we both know the former is just make believe and the latter is your comprehension not mine...my claim is that it is the left demanding trump stop using twitter, your claim is that they don't have the power to make him stop which is an admission that they want him to stop but are powerless to do soYou apparently have a comprehension problem or were just too lazy to finish reading the sentence.
well if nothing else your post proves who it was that had the comprehension problemI don't demand that Rump stops using Twitter. He should be welcome to use Twitter till he turns Orange. Oh wait......... As a private Citizen. Let's make that happen in November. His posting is NOT the act of a President in any way shape or form.
Twitter is a privately owned Business and can do what they want as long as it's within the guidelines they, themselves, have laid out. They can completely allow Rump to post unfiltered, tage disclaimers or bounce his butt into the nether worlds. And the Rump Criminal DOJ can't do a damned thing about it.Twitter needs to keep Trump tweeting, and if they want to, flag his posts when they are blatantly untrue.
Makes it easier to see how much of an idiot he is.