Twitter To Censor Trump Tweets Ahead Of 2020 Election

[Harpy Eagle]

Twitter, like Google, Facebook, Instagram, and the others are a MONOPOLY.

I have been reading how legislatures need to rethink how monopolies are defined. Modern tech and media are a who,e new category.

What alternative is there to Facebook?

What alternative is there to any technology platform? Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, etc. ALL Far Left Progressive Democrat supporters and Globalists.

If you do not like those things, start your own alternative. That is the American way.

 

[beagle9]

Twitter, like Google, Facebook, Instagram, and the others are a MONOPOLY.

I have been reading how legislatures need to rethink how monopolies are defined. Modern tech and media are a who,e new category.

What alternative is there to Facebook?

What alternative is there to any technology platform? Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, etc. ALL Far Left Progressive Democrat supporters and Globalists.

If you do not like those things, start your own alternative. That is the American way.

It took government help to get those companies going early on, and once they climb to a level far above the one that provided that help or pathway to the stars in this country, then they betray it due to their power becoming all consuming and intoxicating. Yes without government help most companies wouldn't exist today whether it was their ease of a regulation, tax breaks, permits granted, promotion of and/or etc.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It took government help to get those companies going early on, and once they climb to a level far above the one that provided that help or pathway to the stars in this country, then they betray it due to their power becoming all consuming and intoxicating. Yes without government help most companies wouldn't exist today whether it was ease of a regulation, tax breaks, permits granted, promotion of and/or etc.

They got no more help than any other company, but these companies were the best at what they do and now you folks want to punish that success.

 

[beagle9]

It took government help to get those companies going early on, and once they climb to a level far above the one that provided that help or pathway to the stars in this country, then they betray it due to their power becoming all consuming and intoxicating. Yes without government help most companies wouldn't exist today whether it was ease of a regulation, tax breaks, permits granted, promotion of and/or etc.

They got no more help than any other company, but these companies were the best at what they do and now you folks want to punish that success.

No.. As long as they aren't doing bad things no one wants to punish anyone. If caught using their power to undermine the nation in a sinister way, then heck yes they should be held accountable for that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not own regulate and f u Gator. You don’t want to keep it civil so be it. My argument is how they regulate not own. NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently. You arrogant dink.

NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently, as is Twitter yet you have a problem with that. You keep wanting to make it to be either NYT or ATT.

Nope. Twitter got a special exception as did Facebook. They said they were Internet conduits and didn’t police information. Bank of America is a public company and the Govt doesn’t tell the management team how to run the Bank however it has to comply with the regulations of a commercial bank. BAML has to follow different regulations than a debt or Mezz fund because BAML has people’s deposits that it is responsible for. Twitter is being regulated like just a conduit of information like AT&T but they are nothing like AT&T they are closer to the NYT than AT&T. Hence they should be regulated as such.

Since you’re an asshole here is an article for you to read from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[DOTR]

Then they should not advertise or be classified as a neutral provider of content. They block what they deem is offensive. Subjective. Should be regulated as such imo. We are going in circles we need a third party to moderate.

Being a neutral provider of content does not prohibit you from blocking content that would damage your company.

Which is subjective. Hence you’re not neutral.

Then no such thing exist, nor should it exist. A private company should always do what is best for its bottom line.

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

 

[dblack]

Being a neutral provider of content does not prohibit you from blocking content that would damage your company.

Which is subjective. Hence you’re not neutral.

Then no such thing exist, nor should it exist. A private company should always do what is best for its bottom line.

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Being a neutral provider of content does not prohibit you from blocking content that would damage your company.

Which is subjective. Hence you’re not neutral.

Then no such thing exist, nor should it exist. A private company should always do what is best for its bottom line.

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Same difference. It just has to report financials publicly whoopti doo.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Which is subjective. Hence you’re not neutral.

Then no such thing exist, nor should it exist. A private company should always do what is best for its bottom line.

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

It should be regulated like the NYT, NBC, FOX, etc. all I am saying

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not own regulate and f u Gator. You don’t want to keep it civil so be it. My argument is how they regulate not own. NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently. You arrogant dink.

NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently, as is Twitter yet you have a problem with that. You keep wanting to make it to be either NYT or ATT.

Nope. Twitter got a special exception as did Facebook. They said they were Internet conduits and didn’t police information. Bank of America is a public company and the Govt doesn’t tell the management team how to run the Bank however it has to comply with the regulations of a commercial bank. BAML has to follow different regulations than a debt or Mezz fund because BAML has people’s deposits that it is responsible for. Twitter is being regulated like just a conduit of information like AT&T but they are nothing like AT&T they are closer to the NYT than AT&T. Hence they should be regulated as such.

Since you’re an asshole here is an article for you to read from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

They are far closer to ATT than than the times if you want to keep using this tired analogy.

The NY Times produces or pays for all of their content. They choose each and every story that is printed or posted under their name. you cannot put a story in the NY Times without prior approval of the content.

Twitter does none of these things, anyone and everyone that has not broken their TOS can post on Twitter with no prior approval and not screening of what is being posted prior to it showing up for anyone and everyone to see.

Twitter is about as close to the NY Times as a skateboard is to Formula 1 race car

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then no such thing exist, nor should it exist. A private company should always do what is best for its bottom line.

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

It should be regulated like the NYT, NBC, FOX, etc. all I am saying

All of those produce their own content and give prior approval to anything and everything that is published. They are nothing like Twitter or FB.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not own regulate and f u Gator. You don’t want to keep it civil so be it. My argument is how they regulate not own. NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently. You arrogant dink.

NYT and AT&at are both private but are regulated differently, as is Twitter yet you have a problem with that. You keep wanting to make it to be either NYT or ATT.

Nope. Twitter got a special exception as did Facebook. They said they were Internet conduits and didn’t police information. Bank of America is a public company and the Govt doesn’t tell the management team how to run the Bank however it has to comply with the regulations of a commercial bank. BAML has to follow different regulations than a debt or Mezz fund because BAML has people’s deposits that it is responsible for. Twitter is being regulated like just a conduit of information like AT&T but they are nothing like AT&T they are closer to the NYT than AT&T. Hence they should be regulated as such.

Since you’re an asshole here is an article for you to read from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

They are far closer to ATT than than the times if you want to keep using this tired analogy.

The NY Times produces or pays for all of their content. They choose each and every story that is printed or posted under their name. you cannot put a story in the NY Times without prior approval of the content.

Twitter does none of these things, anyone and everyone that has not broken their TOS can post on Twitter with no prior approval and not screening of what is being posted prior to it showing up for anyone and everyone to see.

Twitter is about as close to the NY Times as a skateboard is to Formula 1 race car

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

It should be regulated like the NYT, NBC, FOX, etc. all I am saying

All of those produce their own content and give prior approval to anything and everything that is published. They are nothing like Twitter or FB.

Bullshit. They are exactly like them now. Facebook banned Candace Owens and then an uproar happened and they reinstated her stating that it was a program error. LOL. And stupid people believed them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

Aha. But Alex Jones cannot as he has been banned. If Twitter said we will not allow Jews to post on our site would you be OK with that? Because essentially that is what they are doing with conservatives. Hell they banned James Woods. Would AT&T ban James Woods? No. But NYT certainly could decide to not publish his verbiage or maybe trash his acting. Twitter is doing the same thing. You post that you think Jews are the epitome of Satan in Twitter and no one will say anything. NYT basically did that. But you post that Gays are and you may be banned. And there goes your “internet conduit”. I can call you a pussy 1000x via the phone and AT&T would not ban me. I can Text you that too and again they would not ban me. AT&T cannot refuse to become a provider for Jews or conservatives or even the Alt Right as they indeed are just the conduit of info. Twitter can and has!

F@ck you’re stupid, Gator.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

Aha. But Alex Jones cannot as he has been banned. If Twitter said we will not allow Jews to post on our site would you be OK with that? Because essentially that is what they are doing with conservatives. Hell they banned James Woods. Would AT&T ban James Woods? No. But NYT certainly could decide to not publish his verbiage or maybe trash his acting. Twitter is doing the same thing. You post that you think Jews are the epitome of Satan in Twitter and no one will say anything. NYT basically did that. But you post that Gays are and you may be banned. And there goes your “internet conduit”. I can call you a pussy 1000x via the phone and AT&T would not ban me. I can Text you that too and again they would not ban me. AT&T cannot refuse to become a provider for Jews or conservatives or even the Alt Right as they indeed are just the conduit of info. Twitter can and has!

F@ck you’re stupid, Gator.

Alex Jones broke the TOS, thus he got banned. If you were abusing your ATT service they would do the same thing.

ATT picks and choose who it gives service to, they will deny you for more than 1 reason.

By the way, this is a grown up site, you are allowed to use the word fuck, you do not need to put the stupid symbol in it. If you are going to use the word, at least don't be a pussy about it.

 

[dblack]

Then no such thing exist, nor should it exist. A private company should always do what is best for its bottom line.

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

It should be regulated like the NYT, NBC, FOX, etc. all I am saying

Yeah. Suddenly Republicans are all about regulating business.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

It should be regulated like the NYT, NBC, FOX, etc. all I am saying

Yeah. Suddenly Republicans are all about regulating business. :eyeroll:

only the one's that are mean to Republicans.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wrong! Twitter used to be like this and now they pick and choose whom to block, what to post, what commercials to run, etc. When it comes to add revenues the NYT picks and chooses who can and cannot be a sponsor. NYT also chooses to have 99.9% of their editorials to be Leftist oriented.

Instead of being a conduit of information Twitter is mimicking the NYT and picking and choosing who can and cannot post. It started with InfoWars and soon it will be the likes of Ben Shapiro and even the POTUS. Bank of America is not run by the Govt but if they redlined who can and cannot bank with them based on political affiliation they would have been crucified by their regulators.

I can go on twitter or FB right now and make a tweet or a post and do not need prior approval.

I cannot right now publish an article in the NY Times, so until I can do that as easily as I can send a tweet, they are not even close to being the same.

Aha. But Alex Jones cannot as he has been banned. If Twitter said we will not allow Jews to post on our site would you be OK with that? Because essentially that is what they are doing with conservatives. Hell they banned James Woods. Would AT&T ban James Woods? No. But NYT certainly could decide to not publish his verbiage or maybe trash his acting. Twitter is doing the same thing. You post that you think Jews are the epitome of Satan in Twitter and no one will say anything. NYT basically did that. But you post that Gays are and you may be banned. And there goes your “internet conduit”. I can call you a pussy 1000x via the phone and AT&T would not ban me. I can Text you that too and again they would not ban me. AT&T cannot refuse to become a provider for Jews or conservatives or even the Alt Right as they indeed are just the conduit of info. Twitter can and has!

F@ck you’re stupid, Gator.

Alex Jones broke the TOS, thus he got banned. If you were abusing your ATT service they would do the same thing.

ATT picks and choose who it gives service to, they will deny you for more than 1 reason.

By the way, this is a grown up site, you are allowed to use the word fuck, you do not need to put the stupid symbol in it. If you are going to use the word, at least don't be a pussy about it.

Really? Show proof that AT&T can decide to ban based on political affiliation please. I would love to see that. Because that is exactly what Twitter is doing and hence this debate. I use Verizon and I have not even once heard of them trying to censor people. NOT ONCE. It is a grown up site. Maybe you should start acting like one.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This isnt a private company. Its a public company.

Who knows what you mean by "public company", but Twitter is privately owned. It is not the property of the state.

Twitter is not a private company. It is a public company.
Learn about Private Company

What a Public Company Is and How It Is Valued

Good grief. You're just equivocating. The salient point, in this conversation, is whether the company is publicly owned and operated by government, or privately held by investors. Several of you are pushing the idea that these companies should be treated as "public utilities" - essentially nationalizing them, converting them from privately owned companies to "public" companies.

It should be regulated like the NYT, NBC, FOX, etc. all I am saying

Yeah. Suddenly Republicans are all about regulating business. :eyeroll:

All of the sudden? You don't think Banks have been regulated this entire time? Or restaurants? or Grocery stores?