Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Of you wanna make assertions based on it you gotta post it.I’m not your secretary.You made the claim.If you want to watch it go find it. I’m not wasting my time posting something you won’t even look at.Show me some twitter employees boasting about it.This is interesting as well...
“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.
One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."
from the above article also.
it is a video of multiple employees talking about shadow banning. Searching for Posters using a bunch of “ redneck buzz words” like “ America” and “ guns” and getting rid of them....and about other various ways they data mine personal DM’s and information.
Back it up or retract it.
I said it was interesting...I watched it....and it was. If you don’t want to research it. Dont.
I posted links showing what Twitter does. How much more proof do you need. He said he tweeted that Palestine was never a country and is not a country and it never existed (I am paraphrasing) and he was banned. I didn't bother garnering additional detail.So, you don't know.He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?
But you still wanna bitch about it.
Makes sense.
Not.
Don't be a dick. Why is everything fucking "Trump Trump Trump" with you. We were civil, now I see you don't want civility. Fair enough. Going forward I am going to smash you, old man.Of you wanna make assertions based on it you gotta post it.I’m not your secretary.You made the claim.If you want to watch it go find it. I’m not wasting my time posting something you won’t even look at.Show me some twitter employees boasting about it.This is interesting as well...
“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.
One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."
from the above article also.
it is a video of multiple employees talking about shadow banning. Searching for Posters using a bunch of “ redneck buzz words” like “ America” and “ guns” and getting rid of them....and about other various ways they data mine personal DM’s and information.
Back it up or retract it.
I said it was interesting...I watched it....and it was. If you don’t want to research it. Dont.
Since you won't I'm forced to believe this doesn't exist and you made it up, as other tRumplings here have made up so much else.
Dismissed as just more conservitard crap.
They do that kinda stuff. That's why they are so sure Flynn is innocent.He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?
You only hear his side of the story, and don't bother to delve into it to see what Twitter had to say about it. That same type reasoning would have you believing every person in prison is totally innocent as well.
I want them to be regulated the same way the Gov't regulates the New York Daily News and the Boston Globe. Or if not for the Gov't to explain to me why they aren't. Simple. Laws are already in place.I never said pass laws. Find one post where I said "pass laws"....Never said that. Typical Leftist, getting angry and putting words in my mouth.Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?
No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.
And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.
Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.
This is common sense to me.
Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.
Stop bothering everyone else.
No committee needed!
No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.
So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?
You're the one wanting new laws passed "for the kids"
Then what exactly are you wanting?
Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?
No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.
And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.
Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.
This is common sense to me.
Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.
Stop bothering everyone else.
No committee needed!
No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.
So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?
I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.
Never said that either. Find one post where I said that. More Leftist lies. You two belong together. You find one post where I said he is innocent I leave this board forever.They do that kinda stuff. That's why they are so sure Flynn is innocent.He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?
You only hear his side of the story, and don't bother to delve into it to see what Twitter had to say about it. That same type reasoning would have you believing every person in prison is totally innocent as well.
He said so, after all.
I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?
No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.
And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.
Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.
This is common sense to me.
Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.
Stop bothering everyone else.
No committee needed!
No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.
So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?
I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.
Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.
Putin shipped your job to Nigeria. You were......commie outsourced!HuhPutin shipped your job to Nigeria. You were......commie outsourced!A lot of people make a living destroying Democrats on Twitter and Facebook to have all their stuff deleted, because their feelings are hurt. Something needs to be done to protect
I really couldn’t care less what you believe.Of you wanna make assertions based on it you gotta post it.I’m not your secretary.You made the claim.If you want to watch it go find it. I’m not wasting my time posting something you won’t even look at.Show me some twitter employees boasting about it.This is interesting as well...
“Twitter employees have been caught on camera boasting about keeping conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.
One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, which Twitter denies doing. Another said user accounts that supported "God, guns, and America" were flagged as "bots."
from the above article also.
it is a video of multiple employees talking about shadow banning. Searching for Posters using a bunch of “ redneck buzz words” like “ America” and “ guns” and getting rid of them....and about other various ways they data mine personal DM’s and information.
Back it up or retract it.
I said it was interesting...I watched it....and it was. If you don’t want to research it. Dont.
Since you won't I'm forced to believe this doesn't exist and you made it up, as other tRumplings here have made up so much else.
Dismissed as just more conservitard crap.
I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?
No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.
And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.
Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.
This is common sense to me.
Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.
Stop bothering everyone else.
No committee needed!
No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.
So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?
I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.
Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.
Huh ?Putin shipped your job to Nigeria. You were......commie outsourced!HuhPutin shipped your job to Nigeria. You were......commie outsourced!A lot of people make a living destroying Democrats on Twitter and Facebook to have all their stuff deleted, because their feelings are hurt. Something needs to be done to protect
You don't know whether it was arbitrary or not. You admitted you didn't bother to look into it.I just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?
You only hear his side of the story, and don't bother to delve into it to see what Twitter had to say about it. That same type reasoning would have you believing every person in prison is totally innocent as well.
Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?
No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.
And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.
Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.
This is common sense to me.
Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.
Stop bothering everyone else.
No committee needed!
No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.
So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?
I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.
Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.
It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.
He claims it was. I don't know. I told him social media is dangerous. I only use LinkedIn.You don't know whether it was arbitrary or not. You admitted you didn't bother to look into it.I just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?
You only hear his side of the story, and don't bother to delve into it to see what Twitter had to say about it. That same type reasoning would have you believing every person in prison is totally innocent as well.
Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .They should not suspend anyone if they are like Verizon or Xfinity as they claim. If they aren't then they should do as they wish but should be regulated differently. If everyone on USMB agreed with me I would never be on this board. Debates are important. You keep putting words in my mouth that aren't true. You're an asshole. If I did that on Twitter, would I be suspended? IDK. I won't be here.I just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.He said it wasn't vulgarity. It was him taking a pro Israel stance. I didn't delve deeply into it as I think Twitter is stupid. Only social media I use is LinkedIn.Even if it’s not doesn’t mean you ban the person. I have No idea what he posted. Is Twitter not an opinion forum?It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
You have no idea what he posted, yet you say it was unfair to ban him. You don't think that is just a little bit nuts?
You only hear his side of the story, and don't bother to delve into it to see what Twitter had to say about it. That same type reasoning would have you believing every person in prison is totally innocent as well.
You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.
Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.I stated what I want several times. You're the one trolling here and then when I fire back you get offended and place me on ignore....Nothing to do with Trump. Everything to do with my kids getting on social media as they are that age now and I want to make sure it is regulated properly.You don't understand. It is about how they are regulated. If they claim to not be a provider then they cannot discriminate on what content is or is not available. I don't care if they block people, I care if they can lawfully do it while stating they are just like AT&T or Verizon. They aren't so should not be treated as such. Again, you could be right or I could be right, why not have legal experts examine who is? What is your issue with that? Please explain.What other App? Twitter has a sort of monopoly. It is not just Trump. Like I posted earlier. Twitter is very anti Israel. They certainly skew the narrative and block those who disagree. This is fine but it should be regulated as a content provider vs. a disseminator IMO. You disagree why is it bad to have it investigated?You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.I can go to another bookstore. Twitter is almost a Monopoly although my kids don’t use it and say it’s for old people. A bookstore if generic will only worry about making money and selling books. Twitter doesn’t make money and decides who they will and will not block. To me they are nothing like AT&T and should not be regulated as such. So this panel can investigate and see which one of us is correct. Why is that so bad? For example this site is a disseminator not a provider. To me they treat the crazies on the Alt Right and Leftists equally and those in the middle (myself) see both sides. That’s fair. As I understand it, Twitter doesn’t do that.Depends. Twitter says they are like AT&T... we just deliver what people say. If you call me a moonbat over the phone AT&T doesn’t block that. Twitter may so they aren’t like AT&T they are more like The NY Times. Generic bookstore is a provider. They also don’t ban people from coming in and out.That is not remotely what the OP says. What fantasy world do you live it? It has nothing to do with Trump. My friend was banned from Twitter for being pro Israel and posting factual pro Israel data. Puzzling to him as he said Twitter didn’t mind seeing anti Israel and pro Palestine posts. This to me is fine but then Twitter needs to be registered as a content provider vs content disseminator. Cannot have it both ways.So Trump is upset that more people on social media dislike him than those that like him. How is that going to work? Is he going to force people that don't like him to write nice things about him? Who is going to decide which people are forced to write nice things about him to make it all even? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop doing such stupid things so more people would like him?
Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?
No one is banned from looking at twitter but certainly a bookstore picks and chooses what books are on the shelves.
And yet a bookstore can not be sued for defamation as a content provider. They don’t know what’s in every book and couldn’t possibly be asked to do so.
Twitter is the same way. Just because they take some things off their platform when they discover objectionable content (as a bookstore may pull books off their shelves if they discover content in a book they don’t like) doesn’t mean they can be legally responsible for every statement.
This is common sense to me.
Don’t like it? Here’s what you do. Go to squarespace. Plunk down $12 a month. Publish a website about anything you want.
Stop bothering everyone else.
No committee needed!
No problem. If someone has a vested interest in changing the way certain social media sites work, they they should finance their own research, and present their findings to the court. It's not the government's responsibility to join a side in private business dealings just because more people oppose Trump than support him.
So now you want the government to raise your kids for you?
I don’t think he actually knows what he wants. Or at least seems afraid to admit it if he does.
Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.
It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.
