Political censorship is fake right lefties?

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Social media platforms ARE sites. They are spaces created by private entities to serve whatever purpose they wish.

If you don't like these sites, visit different ones. Or make your own.

Your right to free speech is pristinely unimpaired.

Just shunted to where it can't be seen, just as you want.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

They can decide what violates their rule of conduct. Not you. You're just making up more imaginary 'requirements' that don't actually exist. And insisting that YOU get to decide when those imaginary requirements are met.

They don't exist. And you don't.

Again, your entitled argument breaks at the same place; They decide for their space. You decide for yours.

More "I heart silencing people I disagree with, and I heart it more when someone else does it for me"

Fucking Fascist, FOAD.

You can say anything you'd like. You just can't say it on my website. Or anyone else's website but your own. You do not have a right to someone else's space.

Thus, there are no 'rights' to be violated, as the 'right' you've made up doesn't exist.

All in the service of censorship, you fucking fascist.

So let’s use the power of federal government to force private enterprise to function as you see fit in support of your political party

That’ll show the fascists.

I don't think fascism means what they think it means.

Gonna give cole-cuck a reach around?

 

[colfax_m]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Open according to who? They get to decide when their terms of service have been violated.

Not you.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

 

[Skylar]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

 

[colfax_m]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

So what are you going to do about it? Get your fascist government thugs to threaten them into submission?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

Amazing how google allowed china to tell them what they needed to have censored. Yeah, thats what I thought. Its almost like these companies enjoy censored speech and curtailing of the first amendment.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Real Reason why the Corrupt Democrats censor free speech is because the truth would destroy them

 

[bendog]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

Amazing how google allowed china to tell them what they needed to have censored. Yeah, thats what I thought. Its almost like these companies enjoy censored speech and curtailing of the first amendment.

It's NOT censorship because FB is a private company that legally could do what Jina wanted. But you do raise the issue of perhaps FB does have a double standard. I don't know. But if FB thought it was in its financial interest to cozy up to liberals, it probably would. And if Trump buoyed their profits, they'd cozy up there too.

 

[colfax_m]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

Amazing how google allowed china to tell them what they needed to have censored. Yeah, thats what I thought. Its almost like these companies enjoy censored speech and curtailing of the first amendment.

And you want us to be like China because?

 

[Skylar]

The Real Reason why the Corrupt Democrats censor free speech is because the truth would destroy them

Or.....facebook has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

Amazing how google allowed china to tell them what they needed to have censored. Yeah, thats what I thought. Its almost like these companies enjoy censored speech and curtailing of the first amendment.

And you want us to be like China because?

How you contrived such an error in thinking is amazing. Do a 180 and you'll get it.

 

[Dick Foster]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

However the media over which they operate has long been held to be public. Otherwise the FCC would not exist.

 

[BlindBoo]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

However the media over which they operate has long been held to be public. Otherwise the FCC would not exist.

That ship sailed away with St. Raygun. When it was decided that the "Fairness Doctrine" had run it's course. That allowed Right Wing Radio to broadcast from a single political perspective 24/7/365.

Looks like the sword is cutting both ways. Now what? The Fake victims on the Right demand the return of the Fairness Doctrine?

Hahahahaha.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Open according to who? They get to decide when their terms of service have been violated.

Not you.

Actually the FCC can step in. And the government Can rescind section 230 as applied to platforms like facebook and others.

You just want people who think like you controlling the debate, you don't want to actually debate.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They have created a new political commons, and need to be treated as such.

They created it so they control it. That’s how it works in America.

Tell that to those who created our highways, phone lines and airports.

At some point you people will realize that things become integral to our society and without proper oversight they WILL BE ABUSED

Our highways and airports were created by the government silly. If the government had made Twitter, they would be bound by the first amendment. Twitter is not.

Then twitter has to come out and say "We ban conservative opinion"

There's no such requirement. You've made it up.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything

Their TOS binds them, and theirs makes up shit about them being an open platform.

It doesn't. As they are the arbiters of what violates their terms of service.

So you've made up an imaginary requirement.....and set YOURSELF as the arbiter of whether or not your imagination has been satisfied.

Neither of those work in reality. As your requirements don't exist. And you aren't the arbiter of anyone else's space.

Make your own. None of your rights are being violated.....as you have no right to anyone else's space.

More service to the god of the left, silencing the opposition no matter what.

Or.....your imaginary requirements are imaginary.

And opposition isn't 'silenced'. You have every right to create your own space and say what you like there.

That people won't see, and that is outside the commons, just like you want.

Just admit you are a censoring goon.

Put those comments on your own site. Every person who can access facebook can access your site.

Cop out. You want to be able to point to things like facebook et al, which all have a left bent, and say "that's what everyone is saying"

You want conservatives in the closet, kind of ironic if you think about it.

As well as hypocritical.

 

[martybegan]

I understand it just fine. And Twitter & Facebook are not private. They are publicly owned which puts them under the regulation of the US government

Yes, they are private companies held by private individuals.

They are owned by SHAREHOLDERS not private individuals. And they are subject to the rules and regulations of the US Congress.

Get it yet?

Shareholders don't make it any less private, Comrade. You're insistence that YOUR desire to use someone else's private property magically make that property 'public' is Marxist.

You don't get to magically turn private property into public property simply because you want to use it. That's not how private property works.

The thing is they hide behind a part of the law that shields them from claiming the posts of others as their content, and then try to censor certain views as if it was their content.

Again, you don't care because it's people you hate being silenced.

And by 'hide behind the law', you mean recognize that a private company is private?

If you don't like facebook, retreat to the safespace of Parler or an Infowars message board. Or make your own.

No one owes you a platform. Your argument is dripping with unearned entitlement.

So power companies can pick and choose who they provide power to? It's called a Utility. Making these companies utilities in the interest of opening political dialogue isn't much of a stretch.

Any company can set standards of conduct. You can get banned here too. And if you want to create your OWN messageboard or online space, you can set the rules of that too.

Instead, in your entitlement, you insist that you have a right to someone else's space, and that they must obey whatever rules you make up.

Nope. Its the other way around. They get to set the rules for their space. You get to set the rules for your space.

See how that works?

So their rules of conduct should explicitly state "we ban conservative speech". Instead they don't say that and pretend to be content neutral.

Just admit you agree with silencing people you disagree with, stop lying to the board and yourself.

Doesn't newsmax or infowars have some webstite

They don't serve the purpose of a commons that the social media platforms do.

The internet itself serves the purpose of the commons. You can go to literally millions of sites. You can make your own.

And you can make up the rules for the space you create. Just like they set the rules for the space they create.

Sites and social media platforms are two different things.

Fundamentally no.

Fundamentally yes. When you claim to be an open platform and decide to pick and choose what politics you allow, then you are lying.

From their mission statement:

It is also positioned as a public self-expression media that provides conversation opportunities in real-time. Users can consume, create, distribute and discover any kind of content.

Without Barriers: The company explains that its business seeks to improve a free and global conversation. Twitter is a global platform that claims to have democratized content creation and distribution. It is very simple to create a new account with only an email address. To delete a Twitter account, users must click on Settings, and then click deactivate @username.

From their core values:

Free expression and civil liberties: The company encourages initiatives that defend and respect all voices. It seeks to promote free expression and defend civil liberties.

Cool. So?

They promise open expression and censor right leaning content far more than left leaning content.

Open expression....according to who? Censoring of right leaning content....according to who?

They decide their terms of service and when they've been violated. You're insisting that they are bound to your imaginary requirements and that YOU get to decide if their terms of service are violated.

Nope and nope.

ACCORDING TO THIER OWN MISSION STATEMENTS.