Mass Shootings in America Thread

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.

Load of bollocks. They can create a new account, sign out, etc.

So many options.

It was always an anti-Trump bs thing. It was not legit at all to force him to not block people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Load of bollocks. They can create a new account, sign out, etc.

So many options.

It was always an anti-Trump bs thing. It was not legit at all to force him to not block people.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
1. It's not necessarily paypal, but the state of the culture we live in if it's bad PR for a company to do business with a free speech platform. It's not necessarily the case that the people who cut ties with them are politically driven rather than driven by profit, but the media outlets putting this much pressure and heat on Gab due to a partisan bias certainly are acting out of political interest.

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.

I think politics and profits are not exclusive to each other and in the end, the one thing large corporations care above all else is earning 'X' and keeping their shareholders happy. Bad PR can/does hurt profits.

Agreed there, but is it possible that it's because FB and Twitter will remove a "All K*kes Must Die!" type of post if someone flags it while Gab would not?

I really don't know about that, so I'll take your word for it.

Okay then. But why so much vitriol over companies backing away.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I disagree DDM.

Decent article on it: https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-blocking-on-twitter-unconstitutional/

@realdonaldtrump ceased to be a private account when Trump posts on it as the President and uses it as a media extension of his administration.

Originally posted by Robtard
Decent article on it: https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-blocking-on-twitter-unconstitutional/

@realdonaldtrump ceased to be a private account when Trump posts on it as the President and uses it as a media extension of his administration.

Originally posted by Robtard
Decent article on it: https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-blocking-on-twitter-unconstitutional/

@realdonaldtrump ceased to be a private account when Trump posts on it as the President and uses it as a media extension of his administration.

And Your Prob with it is ????

Oh and WRONG THREAD FOR THIS! MODS DELETE IT PLEASE!

Someone needs to INFORM Robbie of Forum Rules!

Oh and Back on TOPIC!!!! Leftist Douche Bags say Guns Can't Save LIVES!?

WRONG AGAIN YOU LEFTY LOSERS!!!!!!

Masked Man Opens Fire at McDonalds. Pistol Packin Dad ENDS HIM! PHUCK YEAH!!

Originally posted by Robtard
Decent article on it: https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-blocking-on-twitter-unconstitutional/

@realdonaldtrump ceased to be a private account when Trump posts on it as the President and uses it as a media extension of his administration.

Again though, the court claimed he could still mute them.

If this was about full access, that's a feature that denies this. That's why I kind of think BackFire has a point, and this is really about keeping things fair for competing news organizations.

Constantly streaming feeds they can push out as fast as they can, essentially.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I disagree DDM.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think politics and profits are not exclusive to each other and in the end, the one thing large corporations care above all else is earning 'X' and keeping their shareholders happy. Bad PR can/does hurt profits.

Agreed there, but is it possible that it's because FB and Twitter will remove a "All K*kes Must Die!" type of post if someone flags it while Gab would not?

I really don't know about that, so I'll take your word for it.

Okay then. But why so much vitriol over companies backing away.

The entirety of their argument hinges on the notion that being blocked means that they cannot see and interact with the president's tweets:

that's a lie.

It also shows why the SCotUS is out of touch with modern technology.

It also shows that they are not aware that there are an absurd number of other very public ways to express dissent against the PotUS, not just responding to a twitter thread.

It's just more anti-Trump drivel.

The free speech test, as it applies to the Office of the PotUS is simple:

"Can I still very publicly criticize or express dissent in front of thousands or millions of people on the internet? Yes. This is not a violation of my free speech only a violation of my feelings because I want to shout down people like Ben Shapiro but not be given similar treatment by the people I oppose."

I think you quoted/responded my wrong post. But in regards to Trump's Twitter account ceasing to be private and now a government entity and an extension of his admin and blocking people: Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, I agree with the court ruling; you do not.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The entirety of their argument hinges on the notion that being blocked means that they cannot see and interact with the president's tweets:

that's a lie.

It also shows why the SCotUS is out of touch with modern technology.

It also shows that they are not aware that there are an absurd number of other very public ways to express dissent against the PotUS, not just responding to a twitter thread.

It's just more anti-Trump drivel.

The free speech test, as it applies to the Office of the PotUS is simple:

"Can I still very publicly criticize or express dissent in front of thousands or millions of people on the internet? Yes. This is not a violation of my free speech only a violation of my feelings because I want to shout down people like Ben Shapiro but not be given similar treatment by the people I oppose."

Maybe. Like you said, other politicians have been doing this for years.

At the end of the day, the bucks stops with the courts. Judges are supposed to be unbiased. In this case, are they?

Hell if I know. Judges are people, and it's so easy for them to abuse the system,
if they wanted to, because there's really no way to read their minds. Their word is, literally, god in America.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think you quoted/responded my wrong post. But in regards to Trump's Twitter account ceasing to be private and now a government entity and an extension of his admin and blocking people: Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, I agree with the court ruling; you do not.

Correct, couldn't quote your post and clicked quick quote on the wrong post:

Originally posted by Robtard
Decent article on it: https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-blocking-on-twitter-unconstitutional/

@realdonaldtrump ceased to be a private account when Trump posts on it as the President and uses it as a media extension of his administration.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think you quoted/responded my wrong post. But in regards to Trump's Twitter account ceasing to be private and now a government entity and an extension of his admin and blocking people: Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, I agree with the court ruling; you do not.

I'm right, SCotUS is wrong. You agree to be wrong. 🙂

Originally posted by cdtm
Maybe. Like you said, other politicians have been doing this for years.

At the end of the day, the bucks stops with the courts. Judges are supposed to be unbiased. In this case, are they?

Hell if I know. Judges are people, and it's so easy for them to abuse the system,
if they wanted to, because there's really no way to read their minds. Their word is, literally, god in America.

Correct, they didn't rule against Sanders and another but did so against Trump.

Similar situations.

So when the press secretary releases a declaration from the PotUS, does he or she answer every single press member's question? Is every press member present? So why are those requirements being put on Twitter? No? And specific members of the press are directly snubbed or even excluded. Specific press entities are sometimes not even allowed in, as well. But you're not allowed to block people on Twitter. oohh ho ho no, you have to let everyone have a voice. So classic press setups don't get this ruling applied to them because it is how we've been doing it for 200+ years. Only the new, crazy, wild, and hard to understand new technology gets the gag from the old people on the SCotUS.

Interesting, isn't it?

It clearly indicates that the members of the SCotUS don't understand tech.The 5 that agreed to control Trump did not think this through in a proper manner. They didn't realize that it reflects on their ignorance and lack of comprehension. The only thing people see is, "ha! Trump can't block people on Twitter! Good! I don't like Trump. Anything that goes against Trump, I like it!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Load of bollocks. They can create a new account, sign out, etc.

So many options.

It was always an anti-Trump bs thing. It was not legit at all to force him to not block people.

Has he been following their ruling?

Like, who's going to actually enforce this?

Batman.

Batmanwould fight for the rights of everyone. Even Orange People.

Cause unlike the Loony Lefties. Batman fights for JUSTICE!

Originally posted by BackFire
Has he been following their ruling?

Like, who's going to actually enforce this?

Twitter could by banning Trump. But they'd never do that, he's too profitable for them and the Cult of Trump would throw another hissy fit.

No, he's a messed up man child with anger issues, (remind you of anyone?) Batman continually goes after low level guys who are most likely being strong-armed into working as a minion or who are just looking to feed their 5 kids any way they can, the board at WayneCorp probably do more harm to Gotham yet he leaves them be.

Kind of surprised Trump hasn't switched to Gab. Seems like something he'd do.

No, it is not. He wants a bigger audience you clown.