'Murica! (311 Viewers)

Seven

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
#23,862
Jun 25, 2003
39,359
#23,862
swag said:
I don't think anyone here is saying something is limitless. If Biden uses Twitter to post grandpa porn daily to cross-promote his OnlyFans site, then Twitter should have every right to ban the guy. The difference is kind of the difference between the Italian verbs essere and avere. One is kind of immutable, unlike the other.

You could try to argue -- like the animal fable of the scorpion and the frog -- where for Trump inciting riots and flaming the oppressed is "in his nature". But I'm not sure that's gonna hold up in the court of law, even if the guy lacks any willpower -- or a superego nor ego in Freudian terms.

Twitter would have grounds to ban Trump not based on who he is but on his active use/abuse of the service that has been tied to inciting violence. As an extreme example, take the Christchurch mosque massacre shooter and posting to YouTube.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that would hold up in court.

But again, I don't t think you understand the point I'm trying to make.

I'm saying that Twitter does have a right to ban people, but that they can't use this right whenever they feel like it, precisely because they have become so big that blocking someone does come down to silencing them. Twitter must show that there is an objective reason. If it is argued that Trump was banned, because they feared he'd incite violence and they have several tweets that show those fears are grounded, I'm sure Twitter's reasoning would hold up in court. But I definitely do understand why Twitter was so cautious and only banned him now.
 
swag

swag

L'autista
Administrator
#23,863
Sep 23, 2003
84,858
#23,863
Enron said:
Rudy about to be disbarred
Click to expand...
You mean like this guy?

Tom_arnold.jpg

Seven said:
No, I don't think that would hold up in court.

But again, I don't t think you understand the point I'm trying to make.

I'm saying that Twitter does have a right to ban people, but that they can't use this right whenever they feel like it, precisely because they have become so big that blocking someone does come down to silencing them. Twitter must show that there is an objective reason. If it is argued that Trump was banned, because they feared he'd incite violence and they have several tweets that show those fears are grounded, I'm sure Twitter's reasoning would hold up in court. But I definitely do understand why Twitter was so cautious and only banned him now.
Click to expand...
Whoah whoah. I ain't going there. And I'm supposedly the lefty here. If you've gotten too big and self-important that not giving someone account is considered censorship, then the problem isn't with your business -- it's with your regulatory environment.

But Twitter was cautious and only banned him now not for any concerns over silencing or censorship. Twitter was making fat stacks of cheddar having a tweeter-in-chief always drawing news junkies and advocates and haters to the platform. Twitter has a sick co-dependency with Trump. It just got so bad they had to turn down their cash cow.
 
Seven

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
#23,864
Jun 25, 2003
39,359
#23,864
swag said:
You mean like this guy?

Tom_arnold.jpg



Whoah whoah. I ain't going there. And I'm supposedly the lefty here. If you've gotten too big and self-important that not giving someone account is considered censorship, then the problem isn't with your business -- it's with your regulatory environment.

But Twitter was cautious and only banned him now not for any concerns over silencing or censorship. Twitter was making fat stacks of cheddar having a tweeter-in-chief always drawing news junkies and advocates and haters to the platform. Twitter has a sick co-dependency with Trump. It just got so bad they had to turn down their cash cow.
Click to expand...
If social media have a direct impact on elections - and they do - then this is only a normal evolution.
 
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
#23,872
Mar 16, 2004
116,617
#23,872
abstract

abstract

Senior Member
#23,880
Mar 3, 2012
4,967
#23,880
The fact that they'll punish people who acted on the claims that the election was stolen, and not the Republican leaders and the White House for inciting and brainwashing their base with those claims for months is so fucked up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 11, Guests: 291)

  • ... and 7 more.