All that about Gab may be true, but yes my point was more about how it's not so easy to create your own censorship free platform if you decide you wanna do away with twitter but still have social media.
I'm sure Gab will probably bounce around from host to host until they give up. One video had an idea where it would be hosted on a cloud by all the users on Gab, thus making it impossible for this to ever happen again. I'm not sure how feasible that truly is.
Originally posted by Surtur
All that about Gab may be true, but yes my point was more about how it's not so easy to create your own censorship free platform if you decide you wanna do away with twitter but still have social media.I'm sure Gab will probably bounce around from host to host until they give up. One video had an idea where it would be hosted on a cloud by all the users on Gab, thus making it impossible for this to ever happen again. I'm not sure how feasible that truly is.
You're kinda coming off that Social Media is some sort of right. Not sure it is? Pretty sure all SM platforms have an EULA you agree to and one can be booted at the company's discretion.
I think they'll find a platform and thrive again in time, or at least similar to how they were before. I really don't know how widespread Gab is, not much of a social media person myself.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're kinda coming off that Social Media is some sort of right. Not sure it is? Pretty sure all SM platforms have an EULA you agree to.I think they'll find a platform and thrive again in time, or at least similar to how they were before. I really don't know how widespread Gab is, not much of a social media person myself.
I never said it was a right.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Remember when Trump was banning people on Twitter and some people on the left took him to court claiming he was violating people's 1st amendment rights and the courts agreed?
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah but you see it's different cuz reasons.
Yes, it is different. One is B2C and the other is B2G. This is one of those circumstances where you both are wrong but have the right spirit. It's not the same at all for a business to sever ties with a client that does not fulfill it's standards of conduct. That's pretty standard and has been around for thousands of years. There's nothing hypocritical here because the reasons the SCotUS ruled against Trump's retarded shenanigans is due to "functioning under the office of the president" bullshit argument.
I disagreed with the SCotUS ruling because 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices are simply wrong.
I've just deleted a paragraph which I realise now is practically a 'how to guide' to etc etc on social media
How many (if any) of the SC Justices were aware of this before they made their ruling Re: the Potus social media account.
btw
seriously people...
Hate Speech - Extreme Hate Speech
Some Of The Comments People Publish on Google's Youtube Videos
The same google which links to
nsfw, nsfw, nsfw and nsfw
Originally posted by darthgoober
For me this one would depend on precedent. Do other people in positions of government authority like senators have the right to block people on twitter? If so then Trump should also have the right, if not then I have no issues with the SCs decision.
Agreed.
There's also the question of why Trump still has the right to mute people. That cuts off lines of communication.
Wasn't the thing with twitter blocking having to do with the fact that when you blocked someone from twitter, you not only stopped seeing posts from them but you also stopped them from seeing your posts? And since Trump has said that his twitter posts are official white house communications, then stopping people from seeing them is a violation of their rights? It wasn't really about Trump ignoring people.
Originally posted by BackFire
Wasn't the thing with twitter blocking having to do with the fact that when you blocked someone from twitter, you not only stopped seeing posts from them but you also stopped them from seeing your posts? And since Trump has said that his twitter posts are official white house communications, then stopping people from seeing them is a violation of their rights? It wasn't really about Trump ignoring people.
Now that you mention it, there was some talk about being able to see posts.
I don't see why they couldn't just read his rants without being logged in, as I do. Maybe it had to do with notifications on each tweet..?
Originally posted by Robtard
This is what PayPal had to say:"The company is diligent in performing reviews and taking account actions. When a site is explicitly allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action." -PayPal
Now I'm just a "libcucktard leftist", but that sounds kind of reasonable from a company trying to protect itself from a PR shitshow that's directly linked to a mass murder. They didn't go "we're no longer allowing Gab to use our services because they're White people and we hate White people!", even though I thought that type of mentality was okay now, with a company having the right to do or not do business with anyone they want for any reason(s)?
2. Gab was under attack from the press and silicon valley before this happened, it just happened to be convenient to attack them now for it... even though this shooter also posted on facebook. Websites such as facebook and twitter have had shit just as bad as that dudes posts on there, if not worse. It has been branded a hateful site, even though a study found only twice the proportion of "hate speech" on Gab as on twitter... which all things considered isn't that bad for a comparison between a free speech platform and a platform that censors and deplatforms people... and considering that means that a vast majority of the content on Gab is not hate speech.
3. Him being verified on Gab is being reported dishonestly by the media as if it's a reflection on Gab's views, even though Gab's verification policy is literally just identity confirmation rather than the way twitter treats it as some celebrity status.
4. Of course these private companies have the right to do business or not do business with whoever they want. What you shouldn't do and what you shouldn't be allowed to do are two separate categories though. By all means if some alt-right **** wants to screech on the side of the road about how evil and degenerate the blacks and jews are, I'll defend his right to say it but I'll call him a **** for doing so. I also think the mainstream media is full of shit and I want their industry to finish the organic process of dying off, but the last thing I would want is government censorship to crack down on them.