Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I deserve your harassment because I disagree with you?Right. You are repeatedly wishing for my death and engaging in a nonstop stream of vulgarities.You just can’t accept that people might not like you and might no want anything to do with you.Only seems that way because people on your political side can’t stop behaving like utter assholes on the internet.It sure as hell does in the application, you can quote what they print all you want, it's what they do that shows they are smarmy leftist fucks, which is why I guess you suck their twit-dicks all the time.
And you are kind enough to provide ample examples of such.
Excuses Excuses.
Because you’re an asshole.
Accountability is a bitch for some people.
You are the only asshole here, you fascist censoring cuck.
And I’m the asshole for saying that kind of behavior might get you kicked off someone else’s platform?
It’s not fascism. It’s accountability.
Your assholeness is detrimental to our political discourse and freedom of speech.
I'm just an asshole to you because you fucking deserve it.
And I’m the one that is detrimental to political discourse? No.
Because you are a silencing cuck, it isn't the disagreement.
What a load of nonsense.Trump isn’t silenced. He’s free to speak however much he wants.He’s not. Trump can speak as much as he wants.When everyone is on Twitter and someone like Trump is off twitter, he is silenced.
He is being silenced, you just don't care.
Nothing Trump tweeted violated their terms of service, he was silenced because ORANGE MAN BAD.
He can go out on the sidewalk and say pretty much whatever he wants. Could he do that if he was “silenced?”
That's the same logic as "you can practice your religion but only in Church behind closed doors"
I deserve your harassment because I disagree with you?Right. You are repeatedly wishing for my death and engaging in a nonstop stream of vulgarities.You just can’t accept that people might not like you and might no want anything to do with you.Only seems that way because people on your political side can’t stop behaving like utter assholes on the internet.It sure as hell does in the application, you can quote what they print all you want, it's what they do that shows they are smarmy leftist fucks, which is why I guess you suck their twit-dicks all the time.
And you are kind enough to provide ample examples of such.
Excuses Excuses.
Because you’re an asshole.
Accountability is a bitch for some people.
You are the only asshole here, you fascist censoring cuck.
And I’m the asshole for saying that kind of behavior might get you kicked off someone else’s platform?
It’s not fascism. It’s accountability.
Your assholeness is detrimental to our political discourse and freedom of speech.
I'm just an asshole to you because you fucking deserve it.
And I’m the one that is detrimental to political discourse? No.
Because you are a silencing cuck, it isn't the disagreement.
Not silencing. It’s just that you can’t accept that you are demanding someone else support your speech and you have no right to do so.
It really upsets you that I remind you about other people’s rights and that you seek to put your desires above their rights.
What a load of nonsense.Trump isn’t silenced. He’s free to speak however much he wants.He’s not. Trump can speak as much as he wants.When everyone is on Twitter and someone like Trump is off twitter, he is silenced.
He is being silenced, you just don't care.
Nothing Trump tweeted violated their terms of service, he was silenced because ORANGE MAN BAD.
He can go out on the sidewalk and say pretty much whatever he wants. Could he do that if he was “silenced?”
That's the same logic as "you can practice your religion but only in Church behind closed doors"
Do you think people have the right to practice their religion anywhere they want? Of course not.
Twitter gets to decide what it means to be an open platform. Twitter has decided that the platform is more open when they keep harassment down so that people who are being harassed have the opportunity to speak without people being assholes to them. You got a problem with that? I don't care, because it's not your right to force your opinions on Twitter.They claim to be an open platform, and then censor people from one side on the flimsiest of excuses.
What rights are we violating of theirs? The content on the platform isn't theirs, they aren't being told to claim someone else's speech as their own, they still control all monetary input from the platform
No, they don't. If a group of Satan worshipers wanted to sacrifice a goat on your front lawn, you'd rightfully kick them off and it wouldn't be a violation of the free exercise of religion.Yes, they do. It's called free exercise, and can only be limited for compelling government interest, and then only using the least infringing means possible.
Even the SC agrees.
Twitter gets to decide what it means to be an open platform. Twitter has decided that the platform is more open when they keep harassment down so that people who are being harassed have the opportunity to speak without people being assholes to them. You got a problem with that? I don't care, because it's not your right to force your opinions on Twitter.They claim to be an open platform, and then censor people from one side on the flimsiest of excuses.
What rights are we violating of theirs? The content on the platform isn't theirs, they aren't being told to claim someone else's speech as their own, they still control all monetary input from the platform
You're violating their rights to use their property as they see fit. This isn't about the speech, it's about what you're demanding Twitter do with it, specifically your demanding that Twitter use their resources to publish it on the internet. Twitter has a right to not publish content that they don't want to publish.
No, they don't. If a group of Satan worshipers wanted to sacrifice a goat on your front lawn, you'd rightfully kick them off and it wouldn't be a violation of the free exercise of religion.Yes, they do. It's called free exercise, and can only be limited for compelling government interest, and then only using the least infringing means possible.
Even the SC agrees.
The court case you refer to is about a public university, emphasis on the word "public". That university therefore has to abide by the first amendment. Private property does not. You clearly didn't put much thought into this post.
Of course they're a publisher. That's what it means when you take someone's post and put it up on the internetThey yell harassment over the flimsiest pretenses, all regarding right leaning viewpoints.
The thing is THEY ARENT A PUBLISHER. That's the protections they have to prevent them from being sued for illegal things posted on their site. It makes your whole 2nd paragraph moot.
So I'm right, you don't have a right to practice religion anywhere you want which makes your analogy bullshit.My front lawn isn't a digital commons.
You made a broad generalized statement, I retorted, you attempted to weakly counter and lost.
Of course they're a publisher. That's what it means when you take someone's post and put it up on the internetThey yell harassment over the flimsiest pretenses, all regarding right leaning viewpoints.
The thing is THEY ARENT A PUBLISHER. That's the protections they have to prevent them from being sued for illegal things posted on their site. It makes your whole 2nd paragraph moot.
That's publishing.
“Is Twitter a publisher? No, we are not. We distribute information,” Dorsey told Cruz, who pressed him at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on why Twitter censored The Post’s articles on Hunter Biden.
So I'm right, you don't have a right to practice religion anywhere you want which makes your analogy bullshit.My front lawn isn't a digital commons.
You made a broad generalized statement, I retorted, you attempted to weakly counter and lost.
Of course they're a publisher. That's what it means when you take someone's post and put it up on the internetThey yell harassment over the flimsiest pretenses, all regarding right leaning viewpoints.
The thing is THEY ARENT A PUBLISHER. That's the protections they have to prevent them from being sued for illegal things posted on their site. It makes your whole 2nd paragraph moot.
That's publishing.
Not according to Dorsey.
Jack Dorsey says Twitter isn’t a publisher amid questions on Post censorship
“Is Twitter a publisher? No, we are not. We distribute information,” Dorsey told Cruz, who pressed him at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on why Twitter censored The Post’s articles on Hunter Biden.
Right. Sidewalk is commons. Actual commons. Like, legit commons.So I'm right, you don't have a right to practice religion anywhere you want which makes your analogy bullshit.My front lawn isn't a digital commons.
You made a broad generalized statement, I retorted, you attempted to weakly counter and lost.
You can preach on the sidewalk out in front of my house, and you can't be stopped. You can walk up to my door and try to talk to me until I say stop.
Nice try, dippy.
Of course they're a publisher. That's what it means when you take someone's post and put it up on the internetThey yell harassment over the flimsiest pretenses, all regarding right leaning viewpoints.
The thing is THEY ARENT A PUBLISHER. That's the protections they have to prevent them from being sued for illegal things posted on their site. It makes your whole 2nd paragraph moot.
That's publishing.
Not according to Dorsey.
Jack Dorsey says Twitter isn’t a publisher amid questions on Post censorship
“Is Twitter a publisher? No, we are not. We distribute information,” Dorsey told Cruz, who pressed him at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on why Twitter censored The Post’s articles on Hunter Biden.
Alright. That’s cool. Just take out every time I said publish and replace it with distribute.
You're violating their rights to use their property as they see fit. This isn't about the speech, it's about what you're demanding Twitter do with it, specifically your demanding that Twitter use their resources to DISTRIBUTE it on the internet. Twitter has a right to not DISTRIBUTE content that they don't want to DISTRIBUTE.
Happy? Hope so because it changes nothing about the satstement.
Right. Sidewalk is commons. Actual commons. Like, legit commons.So I'm right, you don't have a right to practice religion anywhere you want which makes your analogy bullshit.My front lawn isn't a digital commons.
You made a broad generalized statement, I retorted, you attempted to weakly counter and lost.
You can preach on the sidewalk out in front of my house, and you can't be stopped. You can walk up to my door and try to talk to me until I say stop.
Nice try, dippy.
Twitter is not.
Because they still have the right not to distribute what they don’t want to distribute with their own resources.Again, they claim to be open, but only really go after one side with their bullshit terms of service claims.
If they don't claim the views as their own, and claim to be about open discussion, why should they worry about being placed under 1st amendment restrictions?
Because they still have the right not to distribute what they don’t want to distribute with their own resources.Again, they claim to be open, but only really go after one side with their bullshit terms of service claims.
If they don't claim the views as their own, and claim to be about open discussion, why should they worry about being placed under 1st amendment restrictions?
“Why” is irrelevant. You want to override other people’s rights with your desires. It doesn’t work that way. Not in this country.
Ah, the authoritarian thug coming out wanting to force people to do what he wants.Right. Sidewalk is commons. Actual commons. Like, legit commons.So I'm right, you don't have a right to practice religion anywhere you want which makes your analogy bullshit.My front lawn isn't a digital commons.
You made a broad generalized statement, I retorted, you attempted to weakly counter and lost.
You can preach on the sidewalk out in front of my house, and you can't be stopped. You can walk up to my door and try to talk to me until I say stop.
Nice try, dippy.
Twitter is not.
Twitter should be. Either that or they should be forced to admit they only approve of certain viewpoints publicly and make it part of their TOS, not end run like they are doing now.
The hell they aren’t distributing. It’s on their servers accessed by their site and distributed over their connection to the internet.Because they still have the right not to distribute what they don’t want to distribute with their own resources.Again, they claim to be open, but only really go after one side with their bullshit terms of service claims.
If they don't claim the views as their own, and claim to be about open discussion, why should they worry about being placed under 1st amendment restrictions?
“Why” is irrelevant. You want to override other people’s rights with your desires. It doesn’t work that way. Not in this country.
They aren't really even distributing, they post and people can see it. It's not like they are mailing things out.
Then they just have to admit they are lefty tools and only lefty views will be allowed.
