Trump considers panel to review complaints of anticonservative bias on social media

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

 

[Christ_on_a_croissant]

If you've had any bias, let the WH know. Social media is clearly biased.

So, Trump wants his supporters to snitch on meanie liberals when they don’t praise him?

I don’t know how things work in Canada; but in America, that makes you a whiny little pussy.

 

[Christ_on_a_croissant]

You poor, sensitive little MAGAts could just go to Trumptown.com (if that failure of MAGA Facebook hasn’t already gone under)

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

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?

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?

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.

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 just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

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.

Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .
Seems simple.

But that isn't what the tRumplings want. They want to be able to post lies without having them called lies.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

NYT, NY Post is private and they do. Go figure.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

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?

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?

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.

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 just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

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.

Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .
Seems simple.

But that isn't what the tRumplings want. They want to be able to post lies without having them called lies.

Opinions aren't lies. You're a dick. A complete Leftist dick.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

NYT is private and they do. Go figure.

That doesn’t make sense. The NY Times doesn’t publish everything that is sent to it. You’re being illogical.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

NYT is private and they do. Go figure.

That doesn’t make sense. The NY Times doesn’t publish everything that is sent to it. You’re being illogical.

Colfax: Jews are evil oppress the poor people of Palestine.

Azog: Not true, Jews are great, Palestinians are under terror control

Colfax: Palestinians are oppressed, you are a racist.

Azog: What?

Colfax: RACIST

Azog: You're crazy.


If Twitter deletes my posts and bans me while keeping yours, they are basically writing a narrative. I also posted an article on this. Obviously others share my views.

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Gigaom

 

[Crepitus]

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?

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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

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?

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?

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.

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 just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

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.

Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .
Seems simple.

But that isn't what the tRumplings want. They want to be able to post lies without having them called lies.

Opinions aren't lies. You're a dick. A complete Leftist dick.

Considering I've been trying unsuccessfully for years to explain that to conservitards it's pretty funny to have it quoted back at me.

But it is correct. Opinions are. It lies, and if all these folks were doing is stating opinions that would be fine, but that's. It what most of them are doing. Facebook is removing verifiably false information and hate speech. Same with twitter and all the rest.

That's all.

You can still post your opinion all you want.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

NYT is private and they do. Go figure.

That doesn’t make sense. The NY Times doesn’t publish everything that is sent to it. You’re being illogical.

Colfax: Jews are evil oppress the poor people of Palestine.

Azog: Not true, Jews are great, Palestinians are under terror control

Colfax: Palestinians are oppressed, you are a racist.

Azog: What?

Colfax: RACIST

Azog: You're crazy.


If Twitter deletes my posts and bans me while keeping yours, they are basically writing a narrative. I also posted an article on this. Obviously others share my views.

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Gigaom

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

 

[Moonglow]

The poor sensitive snowflakes.

Sad.

I wonder how much sensitive twitter will become if an Online Bill of Rights were passed. These social media companies fear that greatly, the question is, "why should they?"

Repubs like their fortified strong centralized govt.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

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?

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?

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.

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 just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

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.

Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .
Seems simple.

But that isn't what the tRumplings want. They want to be able to post lies without having them called lies.

Opinions aren't lies. You're a dick. A complete Leftist dick.

Considering I've been trying unsuccessfully for years to explain that to conservitards it's pretty funny to have it quoted back at me.

But it is correct. Opinions are. It lies, and if all these folks were doing is stating opinions that would be fine, but that's. It what most of them are doing. Facebook is removing verifiably false information and hate speech. Same with twitter and all the rest.

That's all.

You can still post your opinion all you want.

Me stating that Israel has the right to exist is only hate speech in your messed up Leftist world.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

NYT is private and they do. Go figure.

That doesn’t make sense. The NY Times doesn’t publish everything that is sent to it. You’re being illogical.

Colfax: Jews are evil oppress the poor people of Palestine.

Azog: Not true, Jews are great, Palestinians are under terror control

Colfax: Palestinians are oppressed, you are a racist.

Azog: What?

Colfax: RACIST

Azog: You're crazy.


If Twitter deletes my posts and bans me while keeping yours, they are basically writing a narrative. I also posted an article on this. Obviously others share my views.

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Gigaom

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

I disagree. I believe your argument is weak. I believe Twitter is nothing like Verizon or Xfinity as they claim to be. So we should let the highest court decide which of us is right.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

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?

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?

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.

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 just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

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.

Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .
Seems simple.

But that isn't what the tRumplings want. They want to be able to post lies without having them called lies.

Opinions aren't lies. You're a dick. A complete Leftist dick.

Considering I've been trying unsuccessfully for years to explain that to conservitards it's pretty funny to have it quoted back at me.

But it is correct. Opinions are. It lies, and if all these folks were doing is stating opinions that would be fine, but that's. It what most of them are doing. Facebook is removing verifiably false information and hate speech. Same with twitter and all the rest.

That's all.

You can still post your opinion all you want.

Me stating that Israel has the right to exist is only hate speech in your messed up Leftist world.

That isn't hate speech. They don't ban people for that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

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?

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?

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.

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 just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

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.

Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .
Seems simple.

But that isn't what the tRumplings want. They want to be able to post lies without having them called lies.

Opinions aren't lies. You're a dick. A complete Leftist dick.

Considering I've been trying unsuccessfully for years to explain that to conservitards it's pretty funny to have it quoted back at me.

But it is correct. Opinions are. It lies, and if all these folks were doing is stating opinions that would be fine, but that's. It what most of them are doing. Facebook is removing verifiably false information and hate speech. Same with twitter and all the rest.

That's all.

You can still post your opinion all you want.

Me stating that Israel has the right to exist is only hate speech in your messed up Leftist world.

That isn't hate speech. They don't ban people for that.

Banned my friend. According to him that is all he said. Maybe he did so more strongly. IDK.

Have you ever seen me post hate speech here? I voted for Trump. We aren't all the same.

 

[mdk]

If only there was some sort of way to forsake your Facebook and Twitter accounts and go to place where you feel you're not being discriminated aganist. If only...

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

Is a book store a content provider or content disseminator?

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.

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.

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.

You can go to another website. We don’t need Trump’s committee telling us what is fair.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

You’ve made some vague references to regulations but no idea what you’re goal is.

Goal is to hold Twitter accountable. I don't buy all their "accidental" account suspensions.

Accountable for what? They have no obligation to keep any accounts they don’t want.

I disagree. They are a publisher of content. They should be held accountable just as the LA Times is held accountable.

It’s impossible. Twitter can’t be responsible for the millions upon millions of tweets published every day.

Yet somehow it finds a select few to note and ban? I am sure they can manage.

Well, yeah. They can’t monitor everything but sometimes when they get reports on some they ban them. You’re not being logical.

If my friend isn't lying and he basically said Palestine never existed as a country, that should not be worth a ban. IMO. But its their platform. USMB is very fair IMO how they do it here. Twitter from what I hear and read is not.

Twitter is a private company. They have no obligation to be fair.

NYT is private and they do. Go figure.

That doesn’t make sense. The NY Times doesn’t publish everything that is sent to it. You’re being illogical.

Colfax: Jews are evil oppress the poor people of Palestine.

Azog: Not true, Jews are great, Palestinians are under terror control

Colfax: Palestinians are oppressed, you are a racist.

Azog: What?

Colfax: RACIST

Azog: You're crazy.


If Twitter deletes my posts and bans me while keeping yours, they are basically writing a narrative. I also posted an article on this. Obviously others share my views.

Is Twitter a publisher or a distributor? There’s a crucial difference – Gigaom

This is pretty weak. Twitter is not considered the speaker of content published on their platform. That’s the law. Whether they delete something or not is irrelevant.

I disagree. I believe your argument is weak. I believe Twitter is nothing like Verizon or Xfinity as they claim to be. So we should let the highest court decide which of us is right.

My argument is backed up by the law and precedent.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

It's likely that the data he was posting wasn't "factual" if he was banned.

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?

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?

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.

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 just don't believe sites should suspend people arbitrarily.

You just don't believe sites should suspend people that agree with you politically.

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.

Just admit it’s a free for all and nobody is responsible for any written content .
Seems simple.

But that isn't what the tRumplings want. They want to be able to post lies without having them called lies.

Opinions aren't lies. You're a dick. A complete Leftist dick.

Considering I've been trying unsuccessfully for years to explain that to conservitards it's pretty funny to have it quoted back at me.

But it is correct. Opinions are. It lies, and if all these folks were doing is stating opinions that would be fine, but that's. It what most of them are doing. Facebook is removing verifiably false information and hate speech. Same with twitter and all the rest.

That's all.

You can still post your opinion all you want.

Me stating that Israel has the right to exist is only hate speech in your messed up Leftist world.

Would saying that Palestine needs to be wiped off the map be hate speech?

 

[mdk]

I'm really surprised that a savvy conservative businessperson hasn't started a rival to these horrid social platforms. It should be an instant success considering how bitterly unfair conservatives are treated all across the internet.