Freedom of speech // Is the West falling behind?

[Gravlen]

Social medias like Twitter and Facebook aren't monopolies.

This is technically correct, if only because they constitute an oligopoly. It's not an improvement, of course.

[Betoni]

Yeah, none of that means that Twitter is demanding more power or that Dorsey rules over countries. How do you suppose governments should regulate social media? Let's get some concrete proposals here.

Yeah, the filter bubbles and targeted adverts work. I'm not arguing that they don't. I'm arguing that you place unreasonably high importance on social media and have unreasonable high expectations of them. Nobody actually forces you to use their services.

What is the power that Twitter et all are grapping exactly? The same power that they had all along, the power to control who uses their services?

So demanding that your company should operate in a foreign country during an election, while having the capability to influence its election, is, according to Betoni, "not demanding more power" - got it.

As for arguing that nobody forcing people to use a service, that's kind of bullshit in this day and age. Nobody forces people to use plumbing, or electricity, or shop for goods, or use the internet, but it's a tad essential in this day and age. So is having social media.

As for the third part, I'm loving your admission there Betoni. Let me quote it: the power to control who uses their services And that's the issue. When I shop at a grocery store, and use its services, the grocery store doesn't control me. They don't block certain aisles from my view. Companies shouldn't control those who use their services.

Sure the grocery store can regulate the amount of people inside, what shopping routes people can take, what people see first and last, but once the shopping is complete, grocery store loses its regulation. If I want to go to another grocery store, with an equal quality product, I have that option. With social media, I don't. And there are some, to whose political campaigns Silicon Valley contributed quite a bit of money, that now want to ban Parlor because of "hate speech" - but really it's because it's competition.

And we've seen this, first hand, with Discord banning the Wall Street Bets Community over "hate speech" and Facebook doing that over "sexual allegations" shortly after Wall Street Bets humiliated the hedge funds.

If the country in question is obliged to let said company operate by agreement than no, it is not demanding "more power".

It really isn't any kind of bullshit. I've done just fine for more than 10years without any social media. Just try it, you can mostly even avoid google if you really want to. It's almost disturbingly easy to ditch all that. I still use the Internet, plumbing and go to grocery store. It's almost like social media is not exactly utility. You need food more than you need social media, this shouldn't be a revelation, but apparently it is.

Facebook doesn't control me, or you, it controls, ie. chooses who can use their service and in what way. I think you read that wrong, might be that I expressed it iffy.

[Shofercia]

Really? So when Tulsi Gabbard's campaign's account had "technical difficulties" shortly after she outdebated Kamala Harris, that was fair competition? In what World? When you have a debate, and the news media only broadcasts one side of the debate, in what World is that fair competition?

You seem to be confusing ostensibly unfair practices with unfair competition.

Any such technical difficulties says nothing about the fairness of the competition. (And we haven't even touched on what we're competing about, what social media companies are actually selling.)

Look, you can play word games all you want, but if a company's powerful enough to affect who's elected, they should be regulated.

"We shouldn't regulate it, and if they do something wrong, Judges shouldn't rule on it unless it's against the law or the contract" - Gravlen on regulating social media.

Not quite.

Claiming that promoting conspiracy theories against Trump, while banning factual articles that criticize Biden, is somehow "fair competition" will result in a response that has the ROFL emoji, Gravlen. If you cannot grasp that, you shouldn't be debating about social media.

Grasping something which is incorrect is, luckily, not a prerequisite for debating about social media. If we had to be wrong on everything, only you would be allowed to debate.

Forgive me for wanting the public to have the best opportunity to engage in the political process Gravlen /sarcasm

In a fair debate, the voters have the option of listening to both sides. When social media takes away said option, the debate's no longer fair.

Again, not really the question at hand. You can have a fair debate with or without social media, and if you choose social media, you have many to choose from.

Again, social media was grotesquely one sided. Countries should be able to regulate actors that can actually influence their elections.

In the US we have these things called laws, that define what a contract is. I wonder who passed these laws, was it *gasp* the elected legislature?

Indeed. You're learning. Next you might learn what the difference is between contract law and the regulation of specific industries.

Wow, that's like completely refusing to address the elephant the room, namely the sheer amount of control that social media companies can obtain if left unregulated, and debating petty legalese statements instead.

I just want the voters to have a choice, and for the playing field to be as even as possible.

If so, you shouldn't leave it up to the capitalist free market.

That said, regulation such as this does not level the playing field.

The claim that regulation does not level the playing field, is that based on an iota of research, or simply an ignorant opinion? Also, the social media marketplace ain't free. Capitalism only thrives is there's fair competition; otherwise it turns into corporatism that eventually fails the citizenry. If two soccer teams play, and one can simply buy out the best player from the other team during halftime, I doubt we'd call that a fair game. And that's not even counting all of the patent trolling bullshit, the innovation stealing, and other things that social media giants do, like promoting corporate media stories over those of independent creators, tweaking algorithms that should run naturally, and so on.

We have plenty of laws governing boilerplate contractual provisions that the Courts must take into account. But hey, if you want to be Capitalizt, check out Somalia, it's pure freedom there.

As above, you still haven't grasped the important difference between contract law and regulating specific industries.

The way you dodge the elephant in the room Gravlen, is way too transparent.

It's about Poland regulating the ToS of companies that operate within Poland. Is Poland seeking to enforce these rules in Zimbabwe? Nope. I get it, you want everyone to bash Poland, but I'd much rather focus on issues that matter, like social media ToS.

So I wite in polish and call you names on Twitter, which is against Twitter's ToS, but not Polish law. Twitter deletes my post, and I call Polish authorities, showing them that my post was deleted. You support the idea that Twitter should be fined until they restore my vulgar characterizations of you?

Fairly certain vulgar personal attacks are against some kind of European treaty, considering all of the paperwork that EU put into its treaties. Must be the result of all that witing that EU does.

Being able to dominate election outcomes is just as dangerous as being a monopoly, if not more dangerous.

It's also a different thing.

Which should still be regulated.

That just like your opinion, and they can limit things based on size, i.e. only allow five second video uploads, if they want to pay less for hosting. They can limit the time period, i.e. "posts are only hosted for 180 days" and so on.

But they still have to host everything I put up.

Or they can just not do business in Poland. Oh right, I forgot, Gravlen only argues free market and contract law when it benefits his side, otherwise it's oppression.

Certain flames would be against the law in European countries, and could be removed. Personal attacks might also be against the law, and could be removed. So it's not the lawless Mad Max landscape that you're desperately trying to pretend it is.

Do you think the unpaid mods would know which flames would be against the law, and which wouldn't? Do you think Max would keep the forum open, hoping that the mods never made a wrong choice?

See Gravlen, when you break up posts, you fail to grasp the overall context, as you've just masterfully demonstrated. A social media company big enough to affect election outcomes, would be able to hire paid moderators. As for knowing what a personal attack is, I mean damn, I doubt that even you believe people would be that ignorant.

Also, this applies to organizations that could massively influence election outcome, a point that you've heroically ignored. NSG can't, despite the cavalierly insane statements that covert agencies send in posters to post on NSG.

Why not? Where's the line? Reddit wasn't popular - until it was. Same with Facebook. Same with most other websites.

Reddit doesn't affect election outcomes. Facebook does. There's the line. I mentioned it, repeatedly, but since you opted to focus on legalese, chopping up posts, and responding to emojis, you've successfully missed the elephant in the room yet again.

[Shofercia]

So demanding that your company should operate in a foreign country during an election, while having the capability to influence its election, is, according to Betoni, "not demanding more power" - got it.

As for arguing that nobody forcing people to use a service, that's kind of bullshit in this day and age. Nobody forces people to use plumbing, or electricity, or shop for goods, or use the internet, but it's a tad essential in this day and age. So is having social media.

As for the third part, I'm loving your admission there Betoni. Let me quote it: the power to control who uses their services And that's the issue. When I shop at a grocery store, and use its services, the grocery store doesn't control me. They don't block certain aisles from my view. Companies shouldn't control those who use their services.

Sure the grocery store can regulate the amount of people inside, what shopping routes people can take, what people see first and last, but once the shopping is complete, grocery store loses its regulation. If I want to go to another grocery store, with an equal quality product, I have that option. With social media, I don't. And there are some, to whose political campaigns Silicon Valley contributed quite a bit of money, that now want to ban Parlor because of "hate speech" - but really it's because it's competition.

And we've seen this, first hand, with Discord banning the Wall Street Bets Community over "hate speech" and Facebook doing that over "sexual allegations" shortly after Wall Street Bets humiliated the hedge funds.

If the country in question is obliged to let said company operate by agreement than no, it is not demanding "more power".

It really isn't any kind of bullshit. I've done just fine for more than 10years without any social media. Just try it, you can mostly even avoid google if you really want to. It's almost disturbingly easy to ditch all that. I still use the Internet, plumbing and go to grocery store. It's almost like social media is not exactly utility. You need food more than you need social media, this shouldn't be a revelation, but apparently it is.

Facebook doesn't control me, or you, it controls, ie. chooses who can use their service and in what way. I think you read that wrong, might be that I expressed it iffy.

Countries aren't obliged to let foreign companies operate on their soil. Arguing otherwise is peak neo-imperialism. A country's duty is to serve its citizenry, not to serve multi-billion dollar corporations.

Also, if you're running for office, you need social media for research in this day and age, and I'm talking specifically about affecting the outcome of the election. And yeah, you need food more than social media, and you need water more than food, but here's the thing - just because you need water more than food, doesn't mean that you don't need food.

Facebook is lobbying Congress quite heftily to pass laws preferential to Facebook: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/faceboo ... -2020.html

If you're going to lobby for laws that affect your industry, you should be regulated. How's it a free market, if you can pass laws that affect others, but laws that affect you shouldn't be passed? It ain't.

[Betoni]

If the country in question is obliged to let said company operate by agreement than no, it is not demanding "more power".

It really isn't any kind of bullshit. I've done just fine for more than 10years without any social media. Just try it, you can mostly even avoid google if you really want to. It's almost disturbingly easy to ditch all that. I still use the Internet, plumbing and go to grocery store. It's almost like social media is not exactly utility. You need food more than you need social media, this shouldn't be a revelation, but apparently it is.

Facebook doesn't control me, or you, it controls, ie. chooses who can use their service and in what way. I think you read that wrong, might be that I expressed it iffy.

Countries aren't obliged to let foreign companies operate on their soil. Arguing otherwise is peak neo-imperialism. A country's duty is to serve its citizenry, not to serve multi-billion dollar corporations.

Also, if you're running for office, you need social media for research in this day and age, and I'm talking specifically about affecting the outcome of the election. And yeah, you need food more than social media, and you need water more than food, but here's the thing - just because you need water more than food, doesn't mean that you don't need food.

Facebook is lobbying Congress quite heftily to pass laws preferential to Facebook: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/faceboo ... -2020.html

If you're going to lobby for laws that affect your industry, you should be regulated. How's it a free market, if you can pass laws that affect others, but laws that affect you shouldn't be passed? It ain't.

They certainly can be by trade agreements which they have signed in order to serve their citizenry.

I doubt that social media is strictly a requirement to getting elected, it in all likelihood has some influence on the results of elections but that has more to do with the real business of social media, advertisements, than it has anything to do with them being a forum of free speech. Any kind of media can have an impact on elections. Still haven't heard how you would regulate social media specifically, though.

The thing is I don't need social media at all, not less than water or food, I don't need it at all.

Lobbying does not equal passing the laws. Americans have this notion of money being a form of speech in politics, take it up with them. Every kind of entity that is only concerned of profits will seek all kinds of advantages over their competition. So, yes regulation is needed. Next, you should come up with good regulations.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Shofercia, you are a great person that I like and respect but I must disagree with you here.

Alex Jones should have been banned when he called for violence against the families of the victims of Sandy Hook. Sense then he has gotten more and more deranged and evil. He is actively promoting missinfirmation that can get people hurt and killed.

Same with Trump, whether or not he is a sitting president is non relevant to be honest. According to Arnold Schwarzenegger, another Amereican Republican, The Terrorist attack in DC on Jan 6th was something that resembles Night of broken glass. This has gotten very much out of hand and Twitter was not going to stand by and let Trump or anyone call for more violence.

I hate corporations as much maybe even more then most, but Twitter was in the right to ban Trump and Alex.

Also yes Twitter and other social media should be broken up into smaller companies.

Let me be very clear: I have no issue with Alex Jones being banned. I have no issue with Donald Trump being banned. Provided, of course, that it is clearly conditional, one time, application of an extremely clear cut rule. However, the manner in which Alex Jones was banned set into motion a system where innocent people can be banned. My issue wasn't with them being banned, it was with how they were banned.

Did you see Twitter's explanation for banning Trump? It was total and utter bullshit. The rule was as hazy as Dorsey & company could legally get away with. No real evidence was provided. A middle school student could've gathered evidence to make it into a clear cut rule, (heck, Trump almost started a war with Qatar via Twitter, it's not like bad tweets by Trump are hard to find,) but Twitter didn't just ban Trump for the events of the 6th. Twitter banned Trump to grab power, hence the haziness of the rule. And then Twitter went on a banning spree of his supporters, even ones who acknowledge that those who broke the law on the 6th should be in jail.

If they would've said "Alex Jones is banned solely because of his rabble rousing against genuine victims of Sandy Hook" - perfect. No issue there. But that's not what they did. This is just another power grab, except for one thing: Twitter failed to anticipate the reaction of other countries. Now they're eating it, and rightfully so.

That said, we can both agree that the breaking up of massive social media companies is a must

I think we can agree here on all points then.

Trump and Alex should have been banned, now that you pointed out twitter should have provided better reasons to ban them, and Twitter and Facebook should be split up into smaller companies.

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

SO I think that is counterprodcutive, and tend to oppose, I think that must find an alternative way to moderate the contents in social network, because I know that far-right movement begin to claim that "be in support of free speech", so... stay warn to ultra-conservative movement that clam to be for the "free speech", they are the first that want limiting the "free speech" supporting maybe also law like the Russian "anti-gay propaganda law" and similar, or limiting the rights of minorities.

ABout your statement about easter countries, in Russia the "anti-Gay propaganda law" , it ban all manifestation, all public statement on gay right, or statement that gay are not degenerates. In Cheznya exist lager for gays, and when gay's rights or gay are killed by groups like "the saw", the police doesn't investigate, or doing superficial investigations). In poland a gay rights activist risks 8 years of imprisonment because in a manifestation, doeas a manifest Holy Mary with LGBT flag color, "because insulting the religion" (yeeeah... anti blasphemy laws).

[Cultural Posadism]

If Twitter wants to pull their pants down and shit all over everyone's freedom of speech, then I have no sympathy when countries ban them for it. The fact that Poland, a country which isn't exactly known for free speech, is the one instigating this says a lot about Twitter, doesn't it?

Not really? This is more of a "two wrongs make a wrong" situation, because there's no way a fascist government like Poland's is going to be as consistent in its alleged free speech absolutism. The far right only cares about freedom insofar as it allows them to gain power. Everybody else's freedom is disposable.

[Greater Miami Shores]

If Twitter wants to pull their pants down and shit all over everyone's freedom of speech, then I have no sympathy when countries ban them for it. The fact that Poland, a country which isn't exactly known for free speech, is the one instigating this says a lot about Twitter, doesn't it?

Not really? This is more of a "two wrongs make a wrong" situation, because there's no way a fascist government like Poland's is going to be as consistent in its alleged free speech absolutism. The far right only cares about freedom insofar as it allows them to gain power. Everybody else's freedom is disposable.

I strongly disagree the government of Poland is a fascist government. Like the government of Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is not a fascist government either.

I strongly disagree with this statement, as it concerns Poland and Hungary - The far right only cares about freedom insofar as it allows them to gain power. Everybody else's freedom is disposable.

Sounds like my native Cuba under the Castro's and their successors, eternal one political party state dictatorship, where there is no freedom of speech, they call themselves the continuity of the revolution, this statement says it all and proves it all.

Alberto.

[Cultural Posadism]

Not really? This is more of a "two wrongs make a wrong" situation, because there's no way a fascist government like Poland's is going to be as consistent in its alleged free speech absolutism. The far right only cares about freedom insofar as it allows them to gain power. Everybody else's freedom is disposable.

I strongly disagree the government of Poland is a fascist government. Like the government of Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is not a fascist government either.

You mean the far right authoritarian government that's banned entire fields of study from being pursued in universities and blames all of its problems on Jews?

I strongly disagree with this statement, as it concerns Poland and Hungary - The far right only cares about freedom insofar as it allows them to gain power. Everybody else's freedom is disposable.

Sounds like my native Cuba under the Castro's and their successors, eternal one political party state dictatorship, where there is no freedom of speech, they call themselves the continuity of the revolution, this statement says it all and proves it all.

Alberto.

Sorry, but this is a meaningless response.

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

I strongly disagree the government of Poland is a fascist government. Like the government of Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is not a fascist government either.

I strongly disagree with this statement, as it concerns Poland and Hungary - The far right only cares about freedom insofar as it allows them to gain power. Everybody else's freedom is disposable.

The regimes in never the same of the past, in this period they used a pseudo-democratic method to be in power

[Greater Miami Shores]

I strongly disagree the government of Poland is a fascist government. Like the government of Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is not a fascist government either.

You mean the far right authoritarian government that's banned entire fields of study from being pursued in universities and blames all of its problems on Jews?

I strongly disagree with this statement, as it concerns Poland and Hungary - The far right only cares about freedom insofar as it allows them to gain power. Everybody else's freedom is disposable.

Sounds like my native Cuba under the Castro's and their successors, eternal one political party state dictatorship, where there is no freedom of speech, they call themselves the continuity of the revolution, this statement says it all and proves it all.

Alberto.

Sorry, but this is a meaningless response.

No need to be sorry my friend. It is a meaningless response to you, and those who strongly agree with you. But it is a fact to me and most if not all of my Proud Pro Trump Republican Friends and Persons I Post to on right wing news sites from time to time.

I also post to leftists on these right wing news sites.

Alberto.

[New haven america]

Ah yes.

The Right's belief that companies should do whatever they wish only applies when said companies are doing things to help the Right is rearing it's ugly little head again.

[New haven america]

Ah yes.

The Right's belief that companies should do whatever they wish only applies when said companies are doing things to help the Right is rearing it's ugly little head again.

Ah yes, the Leftist tendency to cloak their subservience to capitalism through weak snark.

I'm not on the left so fuck your boring ass buzzwords.

[Shofercia]

Countries aren't obliged to let foreign companies operate on their soil. Arguing otherwise is peak neo-imperialism. A country's duty is to serve its citizenry, not to serve multi-billion dollar corporations.

Also, if you're running for office, you need social media for research in this day and age, and I'm talking specifically about affecting the outcome of the election. And yeah, you need food more than social media, and you need water more than food, but here's the thing - just because you need water more than food, doesn't mean that you don't need food.

Facebook is lobbying Congress quite heftily to pass laws preferential to Facebook: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/faceboo ... -2020.html

If you're going to lobby for laws that affect your industry, you should be regulated. How's it a free market, if you can pass laws that affect others, but laws that affect you shouldn't be passed? It ain't.

They certainly can be by trade agreements which they have signed in order to serve their citizenry.

I doubt that social media is strictly a requirement to getting elected, it in all likelihood has some influence on the results of elections but that has more to do with the real business of social media, advertisements, than it has anything to do with them being a forum of free speech. Any kind of media can have an impact on elections. Still haven't heard how you would regulate social media specifically, though.

The thing is I don't need social media at all, not less than water or food, I don't need it at all.

Lobbying does not equal passing the laws. Americans have this notion of money being a form of speech in politics, take it up with them. Every kind of entity that is only concerned of profits will seek all kinds of advantages over their competition. So, yes regulation is needed. Next, you should come up with good regulations.

Trade agreements are good insofar as they serve the citizenry. If a trade agreement becomes too imbalanced, it should be cancelled.

You might not need social media, but it sure helps when you're being elected, and why should candidates be forced to compete with one hand tied behind their back? You may doubt the role that social media plays, but considering that both major parties are heavily investing in social media ads, it's effective, extremely effective. As for regulation, let me think about it, and circle back.

Let me be very clear: I have no issue with Alex Jones being banned. I have no issue with Donald Trump being banned. Provided, of course, that it is clearly conditional, one time, application of an extremely clear cut rule. However, the manner in which Alex Jones was banned set into motion a system where innocent people can be banned. My issue wasn't with them being banned, it was with how they were banned.

Did you see Twitter's explanation for banning Trump? It was total and utter bullshit. The rule was as hazy as Dorsey & company could legally get away with. No real evidence was provided. A middle school student could've gathered evidence to make it into a clear cut rule, (heck, Trump almost started a war with Qatar via Twitter, it's not like bad tweets by Trump are hard to find,) but Twitter didn't just ban Trump for the events of the 6th. Twitter banned Trump to grab power, hence the haziness of the rule. And then Twitter went on a banning spree of his supporters, even ones who acknowledge that those who broke the law on the 6th should be in jail.

If they would've said "Alex Jones is banned solely because of his rabble rousing against genuine victims of Sandy Hook" - perfect. No issue there. But that's not what they did. This is just another power grab, except for one thing: Twitter failed to anticipate the reaction of other countries. Now they're eating it, and rightfully so.

That said, we can both agree that the breaking up of massive social media companies is a must

I think we can agree here on all points then.

Trump and Alex should have been banned, now that you pointed out twitter should have provided better reasons to ban them, and Twitter and Facebook should be split up into smaller companies.

Awesome!

[Greater Miami Shores]

I believe and support 100 % Percent Freedom of Speech. The only exception is from one person to the other, it has to be with respect, while strongly disagreeing with them.

Alberto - GMS.

[ImperialRussia]

It doesn’t seem likely they seems there out reach for more rights by force

[The Alma Mater]

Did you see Twitter's explanation for banning Trump? It was total and utter bullshit.

How so ? You are forgetting Trumps history on twitter. Years of rulebreaking and ignoring warnings and ever increasing punishments - until they deated him.

Sure, you can believe the reason for the DEAT by itself was weak. But in context it should have been done years ago.

[Shofercia]

Did you see Twitter's explanation for banning Trump? It was total and utter bullshit.

How so ? You are forgetting Trumps history on twitter. Years of rulebreaking and ignoring warnings and ever increasing punishments - until they deated him.

Sure, you can believe the reason for the DEAT by itself was weak. But in context it should have been done years ago.

Twitter is a company that can influence elections, and as a result I hold it to a higher standard than NSG. Saying "look at the context" is idiotic for a major company. Twitter begs for government protection against online pirates, hackers, and even other countries, (usually as a result of Twitter starting shit up and then running to daddy for protection, or in this case Uncle Sam,) while using whatever loopholes it can find to avoid paying its fair share in taxes. It's probably a target, one that costs the Government more than it pays in taxes. That's a welfare queen. Since corporations are people, a corporation can be a welfare queen.

So if a welfare queen is given the power to determine her taxpayer funded dowry, she's going to, most likely, increase it. Since Twitter has the ability to influence elections, and since Twitter is milking the Government for money, saying things like "do your own research and look at the context" while banning a presidential candidate, ain't enough. Saying "we banned said candidate for XYZ" might be perfectly fine, but Twitter needs to say what "XYZ" is, not just say "oh, look at the context, what a mean fellow" as that ain't enough. It shouldn't be the job of the general public to figure out what Twitter's reason for banning Trump was - they should say it. Even on the Apprentice, Trump was kind enough to usually state a reason before yelling "YOU'RE FIRED!" so if Twitter can't even rise to Trump's standards, what does that say about Twitter? And again, the bans weren't limited to Trump.

If you're televising a debate, you have to televise both sides. You can't televise the Democrats, and play hard rock when the Republicans are talking. And yet, through its series of tubes, excuse me, bans, Twitter banned primarily Conservatives, thus making the debate one sided. As a result Conservatives are leaving for other services, and the US is becoming even more fragment as a nation, thanks to Twitter. Yes, I realize that Trump would play the victim card in both cases, but it's much easier to play the victim card when the public is told to gather the evidence against you, rather than doing actual work and providing actual evidence.

[Betoni]

How so ? You are forgetting Trumps history on twitter. Years of rulebreaking and ignoring warnings and ever increasing punishments - until they deated him.

Sure, you can believe the reason for the DEAT by itself was weak. But in context it should have been done years ago.

Twitter is a company that can influence elections, and as a result I hold it to a higher standard than NSG. Saying "look at the context" is idiotic for a major company. Twitter begs for government protection against online pirates, hackers, and even other countries, (usually as a result of Twitter starting shit up and then running to daddy for protection, or in this case Uncle Sam,) while using whatever loopholes it can find to avoid paying its fair share in taxes. It's probably a target, one that costs the Government more than it pays in taxes. That's a welfare queen. Since corporations are people, a corporation can be a welfare queen.

So if a welfare queen is given the power to determine her taxpayer funded dowry, she's going to, most likely, increase it. Since Twitter has the ability to influence elections, and since Twitter is milking the Government for money, saying things like "do your own research and look at the context" while banning a presidential candidate, ain't enough. Saying "we banned said candidate for XYZ" might be perfectly fine, but Twitter needs to say what "XYZ" is, not just say "oh, look at the context, what a mean fellow" as that ain't enough. It shouldn't be the job of the general public to figure out what Twitter's reason for banning Trump was - they should say it. Even on the Apprentice, Trump was kind enough to usually state a reason before yelling "YOU'RE FIRED!" so if Twitter can't even rise to Trump's standards, what does that say about Twitter? And again, the bans weren't limited to Trump.

If you're televising a debate, you have to televise both sides. You can't televise the Democrats, and play hard rock when the Republicans are talking. And yet, through its series of tubes, excuse me, bans, Twitter banned primarily Conservatives, thus making the debate one sided. As a result Conservatives are leaving for other services, and the US is becoming even more fragment as a nation, thanks to Twitter. Yes, I realize that Trump would play the victim card in both cases, but it's much easier to play the victim card when the public is told to gather the evidence against you, rather than doing actual work and providing actual evidence.

If you are televising a debate you are not a social media site, you are a tv station. It's kind of idiotic to compare the two. You do realise that, even if you spam twitter with the most genius ideas ever and the ultimate talking points of politics today, it is not being broadcast to a general audience, right? There is no "the" debate on twitter, or any social media, there is only each individual bubble, that sometimes overlaps with other bubbles.

I've got an idea, you know how, social media and the like, make a big chunk of their money out of selling user generated data or use that date to sell targeted advertising? How about you tax them by the amount of data they collect? Then you can go ahead and enable all kinds of debate with that money, or whatever you like.

[Page]

Are conservatives still pretending the tech companies are out to get them specifically despite the fact that more leftists are being banned every day? Just checking.

[Vassenor]

Are conservatives still pretending the tech companies are out to get them specifically despite the fact that more leftists are being banned every day? Just checking.

Yes.

[Proctopeo]

Are conservatives still pretending the tech companies are out to get them specifically despite the fact that more leftists are being banned every day? Just checking.

You might need to provide a citation for that...

[Shofercia]

Twitter is a company that can influence elections, and as a result I hold it to a higher standard than NSG. Saying "look at the context" is idiotic for a major company. Twitter begs for government protection against online pirates, hackers, and even other countries, (usually as a result of Twitter starting shit up and then running to daddy for protection, or in this case Uncle Sam,) while using whatever loopholes it can find to avoid paying its fair share in taxes. It's probably a target, one that costs the Government more than it pays in taxes. That's a welfare queen. Since corporations are people, a corporation can be a welfare queen.

So if a welfare queen is given the power to determine her taxpayer funded dowry, she's going to, most likely, increase it. Since Twitter has the ability to influence elections, and since Twitter is milking the Government for money, saying things like "do your own research and look at the context" while banning a presidential candidate, ain't enough. Saying "we banned said candidate for XYZ" might be perfectly fine, but Twitter needs to say what "XYZ" is, not just say "oh, look at the context, what a mean fellow" as that ain't enough. It shouldn't be the job of the general public to figure out what Twitter's reason for banning Trump was - they should say it. Even on the Apprentice, Trump was kind enough to usually state a reason before yelling "YOU'RE FIRED!" so if Twitter can't even rise to Trump's standards, what does that say about Twitter? And again, the bans weren't limited to Trump.

If you're televising a debate, you have to televise both sides. You can't televise the Democrats, and play hard rock when the Republicans are talking. And yet, through its series of tubes, excuse me, bans, Twitter banned primarily Conservatives, thus making the debate one sided. As a result Conservatives are leaving for other services, and the US is becoming even more fragment as a nation, thanks to Twitter. Yes, I realize that Trump would play the victim card in both cases, but it's much easier to play the victim card when the public is told to gather the evidence against you, rather than doing actual work and providing actual evidence.

If you are televising a debate you are not a social media site, you are a tv station. It's kind of idiotic to compare the two. You do realise that, even if you spam twitter with the most genius ideas ever and the ultimate talking points of politics today, it is not being broadcast to a general audience, right? There is no "the" debate on twitter, or any social media, there is only each individual bubble, that sometimes overlaps with other bubbles.

I've got an idea, you know how, social media and the like, make a big chunk of their money out of selling user generated data or use that date to sell targeted advertising? How about you tax them by the amount of data they collect? Then you can go ahead and enable all kinds of debate with that money, or whatever you like.

I wasn't comparing a TV station to a social media platform, I was saying that you cannot discriminate based on political views, irrespective of whether you're a TV station, a radio station, or a social media platform. Prior to Dorsey's insane and divisive banning spree, there was quite a bit of intersectionality on Twitter.

Taxing companies based on data collection is idiotic, since it's nearly impossible to measure a per byte value. If I share my email, that takes a few bytes, but it's more valuable than if I post a cat video, that takes takes a few megabytes. If you wanted to tax social media platforms, first make sure that they're large enough so that taxation won't kill them, and second, tax them based on their shareholder and stock reports. That's an easily defined number, but considering that they're heavily influencing the Democratic Party, and Republican Congressmen are typically allergic to taxation, that ain't going to happen.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I support 100 % Freedom of Speech, but from persons to persons it must be with respect towards each other. I have a very high tolerance level of respect for other persons democratic rights to think differently than I do on all issues, and to post them to me and any persons on NS and off NS, with respect.

Nothing offends me.

A certain person on NS suggested to me that I might me more Libertarian than I think I am.

I describe myself as a Proud Conservative Republican, Nationalist, with a slight Libertarian Economic, streak, Proud Republican Trump Supporter, Pro, USA, USA, USA, American Patriot Citizen of The USA.

USA, USA, USA.