If we can’t organize coups on Twitter while blatantly disregarding the terms of service of your platform we are literally slaves. Literally Slaves. Chattel. So let’s just reverse the 14th amendment?
I dislike Trump as much as the next guy, and calling it slavery is stupid, but there are some legitimate questions here. Why allow Iranian dictators, etc. on these platforms? Who keeps big tech in check?
1st wearing masks during a pandemic was slavery... now not being able to incite violence on social media is too... Can we darken their skin and teleport these idiots back to the 1800’s?
It’s the phone company analogy. AT&T would not remove your phone service for any taboo speech because in general they are not actively monitoring anything you say. But if they received complaints and evidence you were using your phone service to commit crimes they’d disconnect your line. Twitter is AT&T. Facebook is too, but it’s also suggesting maybe you would like to join other groups you didn’t even know about to commit crimes.
If Kirstie Alley goes into a diner without a shirt and without shoes and gets served lunch, I want (don't want?) pictures. Anything else will be slavery!
People want to act like it's social media being CRAZY for banning the President. And not the PRESIDENT being crazy for getting banned. They want to over-complicate a simple issue with noise and hypothetical fan-fictions. It's also generally frustrating to watch perfectly grown, functioning adults, cry about social media on social media like teenagers.
I'm disappointed in the ACLU to take such a stand. They as much as anyone should understand the difference between private sphere and the public.
A person’s politics shouldn’t determine if they get to stay on the platform. Did they violate the terms of service is the relevant criteria. For world leaders, the bar is apparently higher. Are they using the platform in particular to incite violence. I think it’s important for Twitter to be more transparent and clear about their criteria. I’ve heard at least one person suggest that world leaders should not be allowed accounts as a general rule. I think there’s merit to that.
What is funny is that 5-6 years ago the Republicans wanted the CEO’s of these companies to be able to limit speech based on the fact they owned these platforms and it was the Democrats that argued they were essentially public utilities that should allow all speech... that has completely changed. I don’t like what Trump has done with Twitter, he is unhinged but I also support free speech above all else. They should let him tweet.
I am not. Even with Twitter being in the private sphere, it’s important to bring up concerns about their decision making when it comes to booting people off their platform. Not because governments need to clamp down on them, but because it can potentially harm the public and so users need to speak up.
I don't know that I agree. hate to bring up hackneyed analogies, but they have some merit: I don't advocate some lunatic getting to wander around yelling "fire!" in crowded theaters. If you do harm, if you incite violence, etc, there must be consequences. Hell, the PoPo came to our neighborhood last night b/c some person was having a really bad fentanyl trip and screaming, walking up and down the streets. They got the person into social services and restored basic peace in the neighborhood. I don't see that as much different from Trump, TBH. (I wish somebody could get him into psych services.)
private business should be able to discriminate against purple haired people because my personal religion it's slavery for private business to shut down incitement of violence
What the actual ****? This is a deep insult to anyone who has actually had real slavery impact their lives, including sex trafficking and black Americans who had slave ancestors. This crazy entitled b**** needs to do a year in a Chinese prison for perspective on slavery. (I do agree that these huge tech monopolies have too much power when there is no viable alternative if you get banned, but that’s another discussion)
keep in mind, Iran has an ambassador to the UN. If the UN allows Iran to speak, then,,, If their "Supreme Leader" wants an Twitter account, and Twitter says OK, but they have to obey TOS,,,,so be it. And he recently, didn't, and just like Trump, he got suspended and is facing permaban if he continues whatever terms he didn't follow. what keeps Twitter in check is their TOS and following it, and their stockholders and sponsors. Did I really have to type that? govt cannot and should not intervene. Did I really have to type that, too? and let's not bring up wild scenarios of terrorist on the international watch list organizing on twitter. **** would be a great Honeypot for capture. That's why on all TV shows, the terrorists communicate through videogame chats and burnners, etc. It's not a problem if it never happens, or if it aids hunting them down.
