Originally posted by dadudemon
So if anyone finds a single example of a tweeter that tried to keep the case going for the Russian hoax stuff, you'd agree that Twitter is unfairly applying their rules?
We've already got proof of them not being consistent.
So these places bring this shit on themselves when they can't be consistent and they lack the sac to admit it.
Originally posted by Surtur
We've already got proof of them not being consistent.So these places bring this shit on themselves when they can't be consistent and they lack the sac to admit it.
Just find a single example. PVS is not being unreasonable with his "bar" for this particular case. Find one, argument is done.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Just find a single example. PVS is not being unreasonable with his "bar" for this particular case. Find one, argument is done.
Lol but is it even worth it cuz I can see these weasels already busting out excuses with "well he's the president". But nah Surty don't play that bullshit game. They need to apply this shit equally.
If they lack the resources to apply it equally then do not do it.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol but is it even worth it cuz I can see these weasels already busting out excuses with "well he's the president". But nah Surty don't play that bullshit game. They need to apply this shit equally.If they lack the resources to apply it equally then do not do it.
No, he made his point very clear. Check the previous page: there's no weasel-room. So just prove your point and the topic is done. We're talking about it more than he is.
Post just a single example from the last 2 days to prove your point.
Originally posted by Surtur
And so it begins. They already aren't being consistent.Twitter Censors Trump Tweet Denouncing Riots; Took No Action On Tweets Supporting Riots
Just for kicks tho.
Originally posted by Surtur
Just for kicks tho.
Okay. So you're point is proven. This happened in the last 2 days.
Case closed. No argument.
To be clear, the case was proven that Twitter censored Trump for his violation of their policies but Twitter did not censor others for their exact violation of those same polices, all within the last 2 days, right?
Meaning, they have lost their section 230 immunity and have now opened themselves up for massive amounts of litigation.
Originally posted by Robtard
^Surt, well?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay. So you're point is proven. This happened in the last 2 days.Case closed. No argument.
To be clear, the case was proven that Twitter censored Trump for his violation of their policies but Twitter did not censor others for their exact violation of those same polices, all within the last 2 days, right?
Meaning, they have lost their section 230 immunity and have no opened themselves up for massive amounts of litigation.
🙂
Now I'm not actually saying something should or shouldn't be done I'm saying they can no longer cry about it. They bring it on themselves.
And if the excuse is that the technology isn't up to snuff then they shouldn't have rolled this out now. But a Karen called and complained to the manager about Trump being mean.
Oh well, they reap what they sow, that's how it go. I have zero sympathy and I sure as f*ck don't wanna see leftists cry about the 1st amendment. It's not sincere.