youtube has been censoring things for years. twitter and facebook simply stopped being sneaky about it as time went on last year. now, twitter doesn't even try to hide the fact at all.

Again, it's their platform, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. If you don't like it, seek out another platform or build your own.

"he used the platform to spread misinformation (not ONE single proof of a "stolen election" has been brought up)"

no, THIS is misinformation. ballot harvesting, ballot stuffing, digital vote manipulation. there's evidence and proof all of it happened along with many witnesses but no...all ignored. because it doesn't fit the political narrative.

Says he, but doesn't bring up a single proof. How ironic. :)

no, it's not cancel culture, that happened the other day when an 18-year old girl turned her own family into the FBI for being "terrorists".

Oh, you mean like the other day when I was walking on the moon. Yeah, it totally happened and it's true because I just said it and that means you have to totally believe me, because it's true.

Dude, you are so bad at this, it's not even funny. Come back when you can provide real evidence. Thanks.

At 1/10/21 07:06 PM, Gimmick wrote:

At 1/10/21 06:52 PM, UncleLad wrote:

At 1/10/21 01:05 AM, Gimmick wrote: Go back to Stormfront, pointy-hat.

The fallacy of labeling all who disagree with you in such a way to make their opinion invalid.

I don't give a fuck; you're a fucking white supremacist who belongs on Stormfront.
Get lost, pointy-hat.

At 1/11/21 03:18 PM, UncleLad wrote:

At 1/11/21 02:28 PM, Haggard wrote:

At 1/11/21 09:33 AM, treos2 wrote: i'm not a right winger. i don't take sides in politics.

Might as well just admit that you are right-winged, dude.

"Trump violated Twitter's TOS on multiple occasions"

no...

Yes.

Name the rule he broke.

And another thing, this is how you lose support from your side. By labeling those you don't agree like that. Odds are he is far more likely to become right-winged cuz you labeled him that way. And so you are just creating right winged people at this point. Self destructive much?

At 1/11/21 03:24 PM, UncleLad wrote: You're just being a huge shit brain who can't come up with anything decent thing to say, so basically you say the only thing you can come up with. You're just embarrassing yourself. Grow a pair and act like an adult for once in your life, my guy. Nobody can do it for you.

At 1/11/21 03:24 PM, UncleLad wrote:

At 1/10/21 07:06 PM, Gimmick wrote:

At 1/10/21 06:52 PM, UncleLad wrote:

At 1/10/21 01:05 AM, Gimmick wrote: Go back to Stormfront, pointy-hat.

The fallacy of labeling all who disagree with you in such a way to make their opinion invalid.

I don't give a fuck; you're a fucking white supremacist who belongs on Stormfront.
Get lost, pointy-hat.

This is how you create problems. Odds are people are more likely to be radicalized if you label them that way. You're creating your own enemies. Self destructive, huh? You just called a random person you don't even know or met a white supremacist.

At 1/11/21 03:15 PM, UncleLad wrote:

At 1/11/21 08:15 AM, Haggard wrote:

At 1/9/21 07:17 PM, treos2 wrote:

At 1/9/21 05:51 PM, Little-Seven-Seize wrote:

At 1/9/21 05:09 PM, treos2 wrote:

At 1/9/21 05:28 AM, Little-Seven-Seize wrote: A private company isn't required to give it's users freedom to say what they want

translation: your rights end where the rights of a company begin.

the rights and well being of companies are always put above that of those using said companies platforms. and if you dare speak out against this you'll be met with people chanting the "it's a private company, it can do whatever it wants" mantra.

Nice strawman you have there, mind if I borrow it? At no point did I say a private company can do whatever it wants, nor did I say your rights end where the rights of a company begin. You are attributing arguments to me that I didn't make.

There are laws, such as consumer regulations which are designed to protect a customer from a company, there are workplace regulations to protect employees, there are laws against modern day slavery, I could go on, and on, but I don't think you are interested.

Yes, more protections could be put in place, but telling a company what speech to allow/disallow is not a protection, it is authoritarian. No government legislated against Twitter because of Trumps account, governments have legislated what counts as hate speech online, but that is seperate to Twitter. Turkey might say that if you promote the Arminian Genocide as fact on Twitter, you'll be locked up, but that's not a Twitter policy, that's a Turkey policy.

Again, when you sign up to a platform, you agree to their rules, just as if I ever invited you to my house. My house is private, your rights don't end where my house begins.

except it's not a strawman. it's the implication everyone who says things like that to protect and defend companies use all the time.

You know, when you sign up to sites like Twitter, Facebook, Newgrounds, any site, you have to agree to that site's TOS, right? And if you violate those TOS, any site has the right to ban you. Everyone has a choice who they want to have as a user, and every hosting company has the right to decide who they want to do business with or don't want to do business with.

It's so funny how right-wingers always advertise that "the market regulates everything" and that "capitalism is good" and that "big companies are good", but once it goes against their views they start crying about censorship (please look up that word before you use it) and how their freedom of speech is violated (it's not).

Trump violated Twitter's TOS on multiple occasions (proven by the fact that usere who said the exact same thing got banned), he used the platform to spread misinformation (not ONE single proof of a "stolen election" has been brought up) and to inflame his followers. No wonder that no company wants anything to do with those.

This isn't "cancel culture" (whatever that should even mean in this context), this is the logical consequence of everything that until a few weeks ago every right-winger held in the highest regards.

Don't like it? Well, you are free to built up your own hosting service. It's a free market, after all.

But if it's a public forum, they should not be able to do that. That is why they bear no responsibility for the content that is on there. But if they control what is on their site, then yes, they should lose all benefits and just become another publisher if that's the case.

At 1/12/21 12:01 AM, Alexander wrote: Alright so let's look at this from a legal and logical perspective.

Firstly, we need to define what the first amendment covers and what can be defined as an incursion of your freedom of speech. "The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation." The important part of the above statement is government interference.

While it is true that Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and so forth are publicly-traded companies, that does not make them an extension or arm of the United States. They are publicly traded, privately owned corporations with their individual, respectively unique terms of services and agreements.

To simplify, their websites and apps are their playhouses; if they don't want an individual or organization playing with their toys, they can tell the individual/organization to hoof it.

Now, that's not to say that if you wanted to purchase web space, a domain, and subsequently build and publish a website that you would have anything standing in your way.

Even with that said, there are limitations on your freedom of speech. For example, as it is a right granted by the government, you generally can't use it for the purposes of terror, insurrection, or so on. It's the same logic that follows detainment after an individual makes a threat. Even though an individual is granted a right to free speech, it does not mean that free speech is without consequences.

Tl;dr: The above mentioned companies are perfectly within their rights to restrict what is contained within their apps/websites; they own them after all. They aren't government entities, and there is no precedent that requires private companies to allow their users to say whatever the user wants on the companies' platform.

At 1/12/21 12:10 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 1/12/21 12:01 AM, Alexander wrote: Alright so let's look at this from a legal and logical perspective.

Firstly, we need to define what the first amendment covers and what can be defined as an incursion of your freedom of speech. "The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation." The important part of the above statement is government interference.

While it is true that Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and so forth are publicly-traded companies, that does not make them an extension or arm of the United States. They are publicly traded, privately owned corporations with their individual, respectively unique terms of services and agreements.

To simplify, their websites and apps are their playhouses; if they don't want an individual or organization playing with their toys, they can tell the individual/organization to hoof it.

Now, that's not to say that if you wanted to purchase web space, a domain, and subsequently build and publish a website that you would have anything standing in your way.

Even with that said, there are limitations on your freedom of speech. For example, as it is a right granted by the government, you generally can't use it for the purposes of terror, insurrection, or so on. It's the same logic that follows detainment after an individual makes a threat. Even though an individual is granted a right to free speech, it does not mean that free speech is without consequences.

Tl;dr: The above mentioned companies are perfectly within their rights to restrict what is contained within their apps/websites; they own them after all. They aren't government entities, and there is no precedent that requires private companies to allow their users to say whatever the user wants on the companies' platform.

So basically the corporations and Big Tech have absolute control of the media and communication services.
Media should still lose all benefits of being a public forum, and should be a publisher.
And the problem is that not only media like Twitter censoring everything, but competitors and alternatives being shut down, basically forcing people to use specific media or have no voice at all.
Another issue is what people calling certain things pro-terror or something. Totalitarian governments call unwanted ideas or thoughts "dangerous" and censor them. This is happening here in the US as well.
It's a sad day when corporations have more power than the president.

At 1/9/21 01:53 AM, UncleLad wrote: So tomorrow Parler is gonna be gone if it doesn't change it's rules. For those who don't know parler, it's basically very similar to Twitter but with free speech. Currently their rules is to have nothing illegal on there and no spam.
So I guess all the CEOs and Big Tech and Media are gonna have control of what can and can't be said online.