Twitter To Censor Trump Tweets Ahead Of 2020 Election

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

 

[DOTR]

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

Stop your nonsense. Its gone on long enough. You've spent your life telling Americans they cant fix their problems but just have to acquiesce. It IS YOUR PROGRAMMING. And that is that.

I have? You’re retarded. LOL. Go back to your safe space.

I’m retarded but your responding to a post not directed to you?

 

[DOTR]

Not own regulate and f u Gator. You don’t want to keep it civil so be it. My argument is how they regulate not own. NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently. You arrogant dink.

NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently, as is Twitter yet you have a problem with that. You keep wanting to make it to be either NYT or ATT.

Nope. Twitter got a special exception as did Facebook. They said they were Internet conduits and didn’t police information. Bank of America is a public company and the Govt doesn’t tell the management team how to run the Bank however it has to comply with the regulations of a commercial bank. BAML has to follow different regulations than a debt or Mezz fund because BAML has people’s deposits that it is responsible for. Twitter is being regulated like just a conduit of information like AT&T but they are nothing like AT&T they are closer to the NYT than AT&T. Hence they should be regulated as such.

Since you’re an asshole here is an article for you to read from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

They are far closer to ATT than than the times if you want to keep using this tired analogy.

The NY Times produces or pays for all of their content. They choose each and every story that is printed or posted under their name. you cannot put a story in the NY Times without prior approval of the content.

Twitter does none of these things, anyone and everyone that has not broken their TOS can post on Twitter with no prior approval and not screening of what is being posted prior to it showing up for anyone and everyone to see.

Twitter is about as close to the NY Times as a skateboard is to Formula 1 race car

He pretends to be defending a principle...but as you can see he is really defending Twitter.

I am? How am I defending anything. I am Giving an opinion.

Again...your confused.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

He trolls like a little girl, I am beginning to wonder about him/her, they just won't shut up on their stupidity.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

No, I am showing you a major difference between the NY Times and Twitter.

You are just pissed off because I do not agree with your incredible logic.

 

[DOTR]

Twitter promotes a lesson in anal sex for 15 year old girls (and boys) and bans people who object to encouraging ansl sex among 15 year olds.
Lots of these will come in waves. And usually across all platforms.

Twitter Bans 'Activist Mommy' for Criticizing Teen Vogue Editor's Promotion of Teen Sex

 

[DOTR]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

Hes doing what it takes to defend Twitter...they are a vital part of elite control.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

No, I am showing you a major difference between the NY Times and Twitter.

You are just pissed off because I do not agree with your incredible logic.

There is a difference. I never Said they were identical. I said Twitter is closer to the NYT than AT&T and should be regulated as such.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

Hes doing what it takes to defend Twitter...they are a vital part of elite control.

Bank of America cannot decide not to allow someone to have a checking account based on political affiliation. Twitter can and has done so. Doesn’t seem logical. BAML is regulated. Twitter is too. Yet Twitter may bam people on a whim. Doesn’t pass the smell test

Twitter suspends more conservative and pro-Trump accounts prompting new accusations of censorship

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

No, I am showing you a major difference between the NY Times and Twitter.

You are just pissed off because I do not agree with your incredible logic.

There is a difference. I never Said they were identical. I said Twitter is closer to the NYT than AT&T and should be regulated as such.

And I said they are not closer to that NY Times and have given the reason why


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

No, I am showing you a major difference between the NY Times and Twitter.

You are just pissed off because I do not agree with your incredible logic.

There is a difference. I never Said they were identical. I said Twitter is closer to the NYT than AT&T and should be regulated as such.

And I said they are not closer to that NY Times and have given the reason why


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

As have I. Instead of agreeing to disagree you act like a petulant child.

 

[Coyote]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

Aha. But Alex Jones cannot as he has been banned. If Twitter said we will not allow Jews to post on our site would you be OK with that? Because essentially that is what they are doing with conservatives. Hell they banned James Woods. Would AT&T ban James Woods? No. But NYT certainly could decide to not publish his verbiage or maybe trash his acting. Twitter is doing the same thing. You post that you think Jews are the epitome of Satan in Twitter and no one will say anything. NYT basically did that. But you post that Gays are and you may be banned. And there goes your “internet conduit”. I can call you a pussy 1000x via the phone and AT&T would not ban me. I can Text you that too and again they would not ban me. AT&T cannot refuse to become a provider for Jews or conservatives or even the Alt Right as they indeed are just the conduit of info. Twitter can and has!

F@ck you’re stupid, Gator.

Alex Jones broke the TOS, thus he got banned. If you were abusing your ATT service they would do the same thing.

ATT picks and choose who it gives service to, they will deny you for more than 1 reason.

By the way, this is a grown up site, you are allowed to use the word fuck, you do not need to put the stupid symbol in it. If you are going to use the word, at least don't be a pussy about it.

Really? Show proof that AT&T can decide to ban based on political affiliation please. I would love to see that. Because that is exactly what Twitter is doing and hence this debate. I use Verizon and I have not even once heard of them trying to censor people. NOT ONCE. It is a grown up site. Maybe you should start acting like one.

No obe is banning based on political affiliation.

 

[DOTR]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

Hes doing what it takes to defend Twitter...they are a vital part of elite control.

Bank of America cannot decide not to allow someone to have a checking account based on political affiliation. Twitter can and has done so. Doesn’t seem logical. BAML is regulated. Twitter is too. Yet Twitter may bam people on a whim. Doesn’t pass the smell test

Twitter suspends more conservative and pro-Trump accounts prompting new accusations of censorship

Try this...go to twitter and try to post a tweet with this link...,

SHOCKING REPORT: ANTIFA Worked With ISIS, Al-Qaeda

You won’t be able to. It’s been censored by twitter though they pretend it’s an error.

So jump over to google and search for the headline “SHOCKING REPORT: ANTIFA Worked With ISIS, Al-Qaeda”. Google will direct you to a fake news page with articles about the dangers of white nationalism, the wonders of homosexuality and how evil NRA types cause school shootings...none of which have the words shocking, antics, isis and al-qaeda

However, DuckDuckGo will give you the correct link at the top of the search returns. An honest search in other words.

There can be no argument about what they are doing now. Censoring news to support treasonous liberals. Never trust google search results...google has admitted to gaming them for Democrats.

 

[DOTR]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

No, I am showing you a major difference between the NY Times and Twitter.

You are just pissed off because I do not agree with your incredible logic.

There is a difference. I never Said they were identical. I said Twitter is closer to the NYT than AT&T and should be regulated as such.

Well you would think so. Actually Bank of America is part of the juggernaut of wealth and power helping the Democrats. BofA has closed accounts of many Clinton opponents and refuses to even process transactions for the NRA. They close all accounts identified as a threat by Soros through his Color of Change organization.
Yep...it’s reached that point. Next you’ll find your electricity cut off because you post a pro-Trump tweet if this keeps up.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

Aha. But Alex Jones cannot as he has been banned. If Twitter said we will not allow Jews to post on our site would you be OK with that? Because essentially that is what they are doing with conservatives. Hell they banned James Woods. Would AT&T ban James Woods? No. But NYT certainly could decide to not publish his verbiage or maybe trash his acting. Twitter is doing the same thing. You post that you think Jews are the epitome of Satan in Twitter and no one will say anything. NYT basically did that. But you post that Gays are and you may be banned. And there goes your “internet conduit”. I can call you a pussy 1000x via the phone and AT&T would not ban me. I can Text you that too and again they would not ban me. AT&T cannot refuse to become a provider for Jews or conservatives or even the Alt Right as they indeed are just the conduit of info. Twitter can and has!

F@ck you’re stupid, Gator.

Alex Jones broke the TOS, thus he got banned. If you were abusing your ATT service they would do the same thing.

ATT picks and choose who it gives service to, they will deny you for more than 1 reason.

By the way, this is a grown up site, you are allowed to use the word fuck, you do not need to put the stupid symbol in it. If you are going to use the word, at least don't be a pussy about it.

Really? Show proof that AT&T can decide to ban based on political affiliation please. I would love to see that. Because that is exactly what Twitter is doing and hence this debate. I use Verizon and I have not even once heard of them trying to censor people. NOT ONCE. It is a grown up site. Maybe you should start acting like one.

No obe is banning based on political affiliation.

Looks that way to me. James Woods banned and Jim Carey who posted much more offensive stuff does not.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

You’re just trolling

No, I am showing you a major difference between the NY Times and Twitter.

You are just pissed off because I do not agree with your incredible logic.

There is a difference. I never Said they were identical. I said Twitter is closer to the NYT than AT&T and should be regulated as such.

Well you would think so. Actually Bank of America is part of the juggernaut of wealth and power helping the Democrats. BofA has closed accounts of many Clinton opponents and refuses to even process transactions for the NRA. They close all accounts identified as a threat by Soros through his Color of Change organization.
Yep...it’s reached that point. Next you’ll find your electricity cut off because you post a pro-Trump tweet if this keeps up.

Wow. Insanity.

 

[Coyote]

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

Aha. But Alex Jones cannot as he has been banned. If Twitter said we will not allow Jews to post on our site would you be OK with that? Because essentially that is what they are doing with conservatives. Hell they banned James Woods. Would AT&T ban James Woods? No. But NYT certainly could decide to not publish his verbiage or maybe trash his acting. Twitter is doing the same thing. You post that you think Jews are the epitome of Satan in Twitter and no one will say anything. NYT basically did that. But you post that Gays are and you may be banned. And there goes your “internet conduit”. I can call you a pussy 1000x via the phone and AT&T would not ban me. I can Text you that too and again they would not ban me. AT&T cannot refuse to become a provider for Jews or conservatives or even the Alt Right as they indeed are just the conduit of info. Twitter can and has!

F@ck you’re stupid, Gator.

Alex Jones broke the TOS, thus he got banned. If you were abusing your ATT service they would do the same thing.

ATT picks and choose who it gives service to, they will deny you for more than 1 reason.

By the way, this is a grown up site, you are allowed to use the word fuck, you do not need to put the stupid symbol in it. If you are going to use the word, at least don't be a pussy about it.

Really? Show proof that AT&T can decide to ban based on political affiliation please. I would love to see that. Because that is exactly what Twitter is doing and hence this debate. I use Verizon and I have not even once heard of them trying to censor people. NOT ONCE. It is a grown up site. Maybe you should start acting like one.

No obe is banning based on political affiliation.

Looks that way to me. James Woods banned and Jim Carey who posted much more offensive stuff does not.

What was Woods banned for that Carey got away with?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Aha. But Alex Jones cannot as he has been banned. If Twitter said we will not allow Jews to post on our site would you be OK with that? Because essentially that is what they are doing with conservatives. Hell they banned James Woods. Would AT&T ban James Woods? No. But NYT certainly could decide to not publish his verbiage or maybe trash his acting. Twitter is doing the same thing. You post that you think Jews are the epitome of Satan in Twitter and no one will say anything. NYT basically did that. But you post that Gays are and you may be banned. And there goes your “internet conduit”. I can call you a pussy 1000x via the phone and AT&T would not ban me. I can Text you that too and again they would not ban me. AT&T cannot refuse to become a provider for Jews or conservatives or even the Alt Right as they indeed are just the conduit of info. Twitter can and has!

F@ck you’re stupid, Gator.

Alex Jones broke the TOS, thus he got banned. If you were abusing your ATT service they would do the same thing.

ATT picks and choose who it gives service to, they will deny you for more than 1 reason.

By the way, this is a grown up site, you are allowed to use the word fuck, you do not need to put the stupid symbol in it. If you are going to use the word, at least don't be a pussy about it.

Really? Show proof that AT&T can decide to ban based on political affiliation please. I would love to see that. Because that is exactly what Twitter is doing and hence this debate. I use Verizon and I have not even once heard of them trying to censor people. NOT ONCE. It is a grown up site. Maybe you should start acting like one.

No obe is banning based on political affiliation.

Looks that way to me. James Woods banned and Jim Carey who posted much more offensive stuff does not.

What was Woods banned for that Carey got away with?

James Woods Releases New Statement About Twitter Suspending Him

 

[rightwinger]

Poor, poor Trump

Having to follow the rules