trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[kaz]

IDC if it is a Monopoly as I don't use it but they are a publisher of content. To me it is clear as day.

Yes, they are clearly a publisher of content.

On the monopoly, their market share does in fact make them monopolies since they completely control their markets. Note Trump tried a couple solutions in Parlor and his own platform and hasn't made it work. If there was a legitimate competitor, Trump would have gone there.

Of course dblack hasn't manned up to answer the question.

dblack's rule is that if it serves the interest of the Democrat party, it's fine. And the current system clearly does that

 

[kaz]

The point is, if you have a problem with the system, let's fix the system. Instead, you want to use it as and excuse to bully companies you don't like.

Gotcha. So taxpayers being forced to pay for the internet is my problem, not yours. That's why it's my job to stop it, not yours. Question answered. LOL, you are a Democrat, that's classic. Remember when you pretended you were a libertarian? LOL

 

[kaz]

There are countless apps and websites that offer similar services. Parler?

Don't you recognize that you're making all the same arguments that liberal statists make when they want to force their will on businesses? They claim that such-and-such business is a "virtual" monopoly (ie, "they have a lot of power and we want it!"). They insist that any business that benefits from government infrastructure owes the state a piece of the action - that they forfeit their rights because "you didn't build that".

This used to be the kind of shit Republicans fought against. Now they wallow in it.

The social media companies shut down Parlor when Parlor defied them, you stupid jackass. Only monopolies can do that.

I take back that you are only an emotional Democrat. You're just a Democrat

 

[dblack]

There are countless apps and websites that offer similar services. Parler?

Countless? That's one. What's wrong, you can't count that high?

LOL - here ya go: https://www.google.com/search?q=twi...69i57j69i60.4192j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But don't be coy. It's not a real argument. Trumpsters don't care whether Twitter is a monopoly. They just want to force them to let Trump back on.

 

[Faun]

The social media companies shut down Parlor when Parlor defied them, you stupid jackass. Only monopolies can do that.

I take back that you are only an emotional Democrat. You're just a Democrat

LOL

Name the social media companies who did that...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Cool dude.

Doesn’t really have much to do with the lawsuit that is the subject of the thread. In fact, doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Nope. Subject of the thread gave an "other" option. This is where I draw my line in the sand.

Too bad you cannot pay attention.

 

[kaz]

LOL - here ya go: LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You

[Insert weak denials here.]

But don't be coy. It's not a real argument. Trumpsters don't care whether Twitter is a monopoly. They just want to force them to let Trump back on.

Nostra just pwned you.

The definition of a monopoly is if there are actually competitors, not that there could be. If you can't name competitors, they aren't there. He's right.

Only a total Democrat sheep like you believes that anyone can compete and no one bothered. People who understand business, IE not you, realized that if there are no real competitors, it's a monopoly. If it's a product people want and the market is free, there WILL be competitors.

You just make yourself look dumber and dumber. It's not necessary to work so hard, you appear to be the real thing

 

[dblack]

Yes, they are clearly a publisher of content.

More excuse making? Let's get the real argument out there: "Twitter has a lot of power to influence society and we want that power!"

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes, they are clearly a publisher of content.

On the monopoly, their market share does in fact make them monopolies since they completely control their markets. Note Trump tried a couple solutions in Parlor and his own platform and hasn't made it work. If there was a legitimate competitor, Trump would have gone there.

Of course dblack hasn't manned up to answer the question.

dblack's rule is that if it serves the interest of the Democrat party, it's fine. And the current system clearly does that

dblack Isn't a Democrat? Is he? Usually I find him logical. To me this is less about Trump and more about Twitter arbitrarily banning shit like the Star of David with zero repercussions. Imagine a business or a restaurant doing that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

More excuse making? Let's get the real argument out there: "Twitter has a lot of power to influence society and we want that power!"

They may have all the power they like but they should not be allowed to get away with this IMO.

Twitter mistakenly closes accounts that posted Star of David

Social media giant acknowledges error; blocked users were told Jewish symbol violates policy on 'hateful imagery'

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[kaz]

More excuse making? Let's get the real argument out there: "Twitter has a lot of power to influence society and we want that power!"

So now you think social media companies should not be legally responsible for their own actions. Of course you don't. You are just proving conclusively what a sham it was to ever call you a libertarian

 

[dblack]

dblack Isn't a Democrat? Is he?

You'll have to forgive kaz. To him, everyone who doesn't agree with him is a Democrat. And a Nazi.

 

[mudwhistle]

mudwhistle
I agree. Twitter and all the other social networks don't like right wing anything. All they want to post is left shit.

Twitter sure didn't mind the notoriety of Trump using them when he was POTUS.

I used to have a Twitter account but I got rid of it.
Twitter is a waste of time and I hope the company gets broken up and the CEO dies of the clap.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You'll have to forgive kaz. To him, everyone who doesn't agree with him is a Democrat. And a Nazi.

You are incorrect though. Twitter via its back door is a publisher of content. Often times against Jews. I am not on Twitter but they freely allow anti Jew hatred and groups like Hamas to post but then ban Laura Loomer. It is twisted.

Sacha Baron Cohen slams Twitter founder Jack Dorsey for allegedly enabling anti-Semitism on the platform

Actor and director Sacha Baron Cohen blasted Twitter founder Jack Dorsey Sunday, blaming his allowance of anti-Semitic rhetoric on the platform in part for increased violence against Jews. “T…

www.nydailynews.com

Jewish activists yell out Holocaust denial tweets at home of Twitter CEO

“Why does Jack Dorsey continue to give Holocaust deniers and Jew-haters a bigger platform today than Hitler had in his time?”

www.jpost.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/27/twitter-walkout-wileys-anti-semitic-tweets.html'

Twitter Rules Don't Block Iran's Ayatollah From Calling Israel 'Cancerous Tumor,' Jack Dorsey Says - TheWrap

Dorsey says Twitter's rules allow world leaders like Iran's supreme leader to post anti-Semitic comments

www.thewrap.com

Jack Dorsey

News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[dblack]

They may have all the power they like but they should not be allowed to get away with this IMO.

Twitter mistakenly closes accounts that posted Star of David

Social media giant acknowledges error; blocked users were told Jewish symbol violates policy on 'hateful imagery'

www.timesofisrael.com

To me these issues are handled by civil courts deciding whether or not they've violated their TOS. If the TOS says they can do shit like that, and people still sign up anyway, it's on them.

But still, this has exactly nothing to do with Trump's suit. He just wants his megaphone back and has told his lawyers to "make it happen". It's just like the election fraud thing. He declares the desired outcome, and goes looking for excuses to justify it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

To me these issues are handled by civil courts deciding whether or not they've violated their TOS. If the TOS says they can do shit like that, and people still sign up anyway, it's on them.

But still, this has exactly nothing to do with Trump's suit. He just wants his megaphone back and has told his lawyers to "make it happen". It's just like the election fraud thing. He declares the desired outcome, and goes looking for excuses to justify it.

So we agree. The Courts should handle it. Legal experts cannot agree on how to regulate Twitter. So I certainly do not know either. But their carte blanche on anti semitism is disturbing.

 

[kaz]

dblack Isn't a Democrat? Is he? Usually I find him logical. To me this is less about Trump and more about Twitter arbitrarily banning shit like the Star of David with zero repercussions. Imagine a business or a restaurant doing that.

That is the issue. Twitter having power is not the issue. The issue is their ability to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Only a monopoly can do that

 

[dblack]

You are incorrect though. Twitter via its back door is a publisher of content.

I haven't really tracked the whole publisher/service-provider/utility/yada-yada arguments. To me they're irrelevant, and mostly just leveraging regulatory schemes that I doubt I'd support anyway.

 

[kaz]

To me these issues are handled by civil courts deciding whether or not they've violated their TOS. If the TOS says they can do shit like that, and people still sign up anyway, it's on them.

But still, this has exactly nothing to do with Trump's suit. He just wants his megaphone back and has told his lawyers to "make it happen". It's just like the election fraud thing. He declares the desired outcome, and goes looking for excuses to justify it.

No one is forced to follow Trump's tweets. You really haven't ever made this clear you aren't libertarian at all. Clearly why I was having a hard time viewing you as a libertarian at all. I suppose your blind support of totalitarian Democrats was a clue too

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL

Free speech is a right. A phone is no more of a right than is a megaphone. As in, being denied a phone doesn't suppress your free speech.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Being denied a phone by who?