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.
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.
And who gets to decide when a ban is for violations of the TOS and when its for 'political reasons'?
See, your argument is falling into the same pitfall again, where you assume your personal opinion is legally enforceable and binds Twitter to your judgment.
When in reality, Twitter is the arbitrator of its own TOS and your judgement has no role, legally or otherwise.
Twitter is not just a private company, but a front end for the public Internet, which demands fair use under FCC laws.
So it is illegal for Twitter to use apply a personal political bias.
First off, the internet is not on the "public airwaves" which is what the FCC has control over. Just like cable TV isn't under FCC control.Thought Ronnie Raygun got rid of the Fair Use Doctrine?
Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discriminationI disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service
Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.
Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan
Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.www.usatoday.com
Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.
If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!
I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.
But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?
Twitter should and likely would lose.
Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.
Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.
They do not get to censor based on their opinion.
Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.
So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.
That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.
I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.
Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.
And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is.
And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.
no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.
Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.
I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,
Broke their agreement.....according to who?
See, this is a huge sticking point. As per the TOS that say, Trump agreed to with Twitter.....Twitter is the arbiter of the violations of its own TOS. And Trump agreed to these terms.
You guys keep trying to push your personal opinions as legally enforcible judgements that define violations of the law. And they don't. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.....is the TOS. Over which Twitter is the arbiter in terms of TOS violations.
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.
And who gets to decide when a ban is for violations of the TOS and when its for 'political reasons'?
See, your argument is falling into the same pitfall again, where you assume your personal opinion is legally enforceable and binds Twitter to your judgment.
When in reality, Twitter is the arbitrator of its own TOS and your judgement has no role, legally or otherwise.
No one ever should be able to ban anything for any political reason.
no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.
Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.
I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,
Broke their agreement.....according to who?
See, this is a huge sticking point. As per the TOS that say, Trump agreed to with Twitter.....Twitter is the arbiter of the violations of its own TOS. And Trump agreed to these terms.
You guys keep trying to push your personal opinions as legally enforcible judgements that define violations of the law. And they don't. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.....is the TOS. Over which Twitter is the arbiter in terms of TOS violations.
Wrong.
As a monopoly on a public utility, Twitter does not get to be its own arbiter no matter what a coercive contract may say.
Twitter is not just a private company, but a front end for the public Internet, which demands fair use under FCC laws.
So it is illegal for Twitter to use apply a personal political bias.First off, the internet is not on the "public airwaves" which is what the FCC has control over. Just like cable TV isn't under FCC control.Thought Ronnie Raygun got rid of the Fair Use Doctrine?
Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discriminationI disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service
Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.
Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan
Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.www.usatoday.com
Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.
If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!
I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.
But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?
Twitter should and likely would lose.
Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.
Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.
They do not get to censor based on their opinion.
Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.
So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.
That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.
I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.
Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.
There's no FCC court for Twitter bans, Rigby.
You've imagined that.....like most of your pseudo-legal nonsense.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS per the TOS that Trump agreed to. And Twitter has found a TOS violation. They banned Trump accordingly.
And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is.
Given that you keep making up your own definitions for things and randomly add words to the 14th amendment and incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court, along with making up entire Supreme Court rulings that never happened....
......maybe you should tell us what you mean by 'dictatorship'. As I'm referring to government ruled by a dictator. With a dictator being a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government.
What definition have you imagined up for us?
And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.
Yes, they are private companies. And no, they're not that strongly regulated. Show us the last time the FCC overturned a Twitter ban.
Per your logic, it should be happening hundreds of times a day. Show us......3 in the last week. Or 5 in the last month.
Demonstrate that you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discriminationI disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service
Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.
Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan
Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.www.usatoday.com
Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.
If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!
I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.
But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?
Twitter should and likely would lose.
Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.
Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.
They do not get to censor based on their opinion.
Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.
So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.
That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.
I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.
Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.
There's no FCC court for Twitter bans, Rigby.
You've imagined that.....like most of your pseudo-legal nonsense.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS per the TOS that Trump agreed to. And Twitter has found a TOS violation. They banned Trump accordingly.
And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is.
Given that you keep making up your own definitions for things and randomly add words to the 14th amendment and incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court, along with making up entire Supreme Court rulings that never happened....
......maybe you should tell us what you mean by 'dictatorship'. As I'm referring to government ruled by a dictator. With a dictator being a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government.
What definition have you imagined up for us?
And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.
Yes, they are private companies. And no, they're not that strongly regulated. Show us the last time the FCC overturned a Twitter ban.
Per your logic, it should be happening hundreds of times a day. Show us......3 in the last week. Or 5 in the last month.
Demonstrate that you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
You are totally wrong because without free and open media, the country is and will remain a dictatorship.
Do I need to remind you how recently it was that the public was lied to and fooled into the murder of half a million innocent Iraqi civilians over false WMD lies?
We already have a dictatorship, but what you suggest would permanently damn us all to hell.
If only the "chosen" are allowed to tell us what hear and think, we will always be a dictatorship.
Polls indicated that 68% of the population falsely believed Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.
How could that happen unless we already were a dictatorship?
And yes, there is an FCC review board, and courts do cut off companies like Twitter who illegally discriminate in the violation of FCC regulations, and the law.
It is true the size and scope of the internet makes is very loosely regulated, but if the law were to be followed, Twitter would be out on its ear.
The only reason it has not happened before of any significance, is that MOST companies are smart enough NOT to illegally ban people.
But the fact these crimes are rare, does not mean the laws and regulations do not exist.
they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.
However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.
I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service.
Twitter is only obligated to it's board of directors and shareholders (less so)
But the real problem is MUCH deeper.
The left also owns the entire Internet....all the cellular Networks....and all the Media.
they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.
However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.
I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service.
Twitter is only obligated to it's board of directors and shareholders (less so)
But the real problem is MUCH deeper.
The left also owns the entire Internet....all the cellular Networks....and all the Media.
That's in question. I thought there was a precedent set back in the 1880's, about that sort of
shit.
When we discuss "public utilities" they are under Federal Guidelines and have to answer
to the Federal and/or State government...but they are all privately owned companies.
All these places like facebook...twiiter, whatever...are means of communicating with
each other. USMB, might just be considered a opinion outlet. Twitter is the modern day
phone...telegraph. I don't care who owns the phone company they cannot listen into
my phone calls without legal permission.
This could be the perfect case for SCOTUS to finally reel in these idiots.
...
The law doesn't change just because you made up an opinion.
You're too reliant on the concept that anything you imagine is as valid as actual evidence. Its the crippling influence of OANN and NewMaxx that feeds you a steady diet of personal opinion as fact. Alas, it isn't, especially in the context of the law.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS. And absolutely has the authority to restrict speech on its platform. Twitter has 15 distinct categories of speech with about 50 different specific types of speech that will violate its TOS.
The idea that Twitter lacks the authority to restrict any speech on its platform is provably false.
no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.
Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.
I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,
Broke their agreement.....according to who?
See, this is a huge sticking point. As per the TOS that say, Trump agreed to with Twitter.....Twitter is the arbiter of the violations of its own TOS. And Trump agreed to these terms.
You guys keep trying to push your personal opinions as legally enforcible judgements that define violations of the law. And they don't. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.....is the TOS. Over which Twitter is the arbiter in terms of TOS violations.
Wrong.
As a monopoly on a public utility, Twitter does not get to be its own arbiter no matter what a coercive contract may say.
Twitter isn't a monopoly.
Next strawman, please.
Except of course, it is and it does....
The law doesn't change just because you made up an opinion.
You're too reliant on the concept that anything you imagine is as valid as actual evidence. Its the crippling influence of OANN and NewMaxx that feeds you a steady diet of personal opinion as fact. Alas, it isn't, especially in the context of the law.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS. And absolutely has the authority to restrict speech on its platform. Twitter has 15 distinct categories of speech with about 50 different specific types of speech that will violate its TOS.
The idea that Twitter lacks the authority to restrict any speech on its platform is provably false.
NO, Twitter is not and can never be the arbiter of is content.
help.twitter.com
Sure Twitter has to restrict speech on its platform, but that can ONLY be through legal means, such as when it would violate rights, like slander, or would be inappropriate for a particular atmosphere that it is marketed for and dependent upon.
no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.
Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.
I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,
Broke their agreement.....according to who?
See, this is a huge sticking point. As per the TOS that say, Trump agreed to with Twitter.....Twitter is the arbiter of the violations of its own TOS. And Trump agreed to these terms.
You guys keep trying to push your personal opinions as legally enforcible judgements that define violations of the law. And they don't. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.....is the TOS. Over which Twitter is the arbiter in terms of TOS violations.
Wrong.
As a monopoly on a public utility, Twitter does not get to be its own arbiter no matter what a coercive contract may say.
Twitter isn't a monopoly.
Next strawman, please.
Of course Twitter is a monopoly.
shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canadaits more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,
If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.
shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canadaits more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,
If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.
My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.
Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discriminationI disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service
Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.
Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan
Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.www.usatoday.com
Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.
If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!
I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.
But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?
Twitter should and likely would lose.
Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.
Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.
They do not get to censor based on their opinion.
Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.
So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.
That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.
I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.
Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.
There's no FCC court for Twitter bans, Rigby.
You've imagined that.....like most of your pseudo-legal nonsense.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS per the TOS that Trump agreed to. And Twitter has found a TOS violation. They banned Trump accordingly.
And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is.
Given that you keep making up your own definitions for things and randomly add words to the 14th amendment and incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court, along with making up entire Supreme Court rulings that never happened....
......maybe you should tell us what you mean by 'dictatorship'. As I'm referring to government ruled by a dictator. With a dictator being a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government.
What definition have you imagined up for us?
And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.
Yes, they are private companies. And no, they're not that strongly regulated. Show us the last time the FCC overturned a Twitter ban.
Per your logic, it should be happening hundreds of times a day. Show us......3 in the last week. Or 5 in the last month.
Demonstrate that you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
You are totally wrong because without free and open media, the country is and will remain a dictatorship.
Again, what do you mean by 'dictatorship'? Because I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Are you using some personal definition? Or some obscure colloquialism?
Do I need to remind you how recently it was that the public was lied to and fooled into the murder of half a million innocent Iraqi civilians over false WMD lies?
We already have a dictatorship, but what you suggest would permanently damn us all to hell.
If only the "chosen" are allowed to tell us what hear and think, we will always be a dictatorship.
Polls indicated that 68% of the population falsely believed Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.
How could that happen unless we already were a dictatorship?
And yes, there is an FCC review board, and courts do cut off companies like Twitter who illegally discriminate in the violation of FCC regulations, and the law.
It is true the size and scope of the internet makes is very loosely regulated, but if the law were to be followed, Twitter would be out on its ear.
The only reason it has not happened before of any significance, is that MOST companies are smart enough NOT to illegally ban people.
But the fact these crimes are rare, does not mean the laws and regulations do not exist.
As for the rest of your Truther bullshit, we've got conspiracy boards for that.
In this thread, we're discussing Twitter, the law, the first amendment, etc.
Its pretty clear you have no idea what a dictatorship is.
And again, the FCC normally does not have to over turn Twitter bans because normally Twitter does not ban based on political content. This likely is the very FIRST time that violation has ever occurred.
they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.
However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.
I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service.
Twitter is only obligated to it's board of directors and shareholders (less so)
But the real problem is MUCH deeper.
The left also owns the entire Internet....all the cellular Networks....and all the Media.
That's in question. I thought there was a precedent set back in the 1880's, about that sort of
shit.
When we discuss "public utilities" they are under Federal Guidelines and have to answer
to the Federal and/or State government...but they are all privately owned companies.
All these places like facebook...twiiter, whatever...are means of communicating with
each other. USMB, might just be considered a opinion outlet. Twitter is the modern day
phone...telegraph. I don't care who owns the phone company they cannot listen into
my phone calls without legal permission.
This could be the perfect case for SCOTUS to finally reel in these idiots.
USMB fits the definition of an 'interactive computer service' to a T.
Anything you do to Twitter, you do to this board.
