Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Twitter has permanently disabled Trump's account

8K views 83 replies 23 participants last post by  Schweisshund 
#1 ·
They think it is being used to send signals to people who are then using it to plan additional "demonstrations" er, ah, I mean riots !
 
#14 ·
I have several acquaintances who use FB, and Instagram quite a bit. Many of them were very vocal a few months ago about moving to Mewe or Parler or whatever site they'd be using. They made sure to let everyone know about their new ID on those sites. Here we are months later. Those accounts sit unused while they are just as active as ever on FB and IG. I wasn't sure when this mass migration by conservatives to Mewe and Parler was supposed to occur.
 
#13 ·
Second verse. Twitter's biggest alternative, Parlor, has been pulled from the both the Google and Apple app stores. They were told to implement content moderation on par with Twitter and Facebook to be even considered for return. We all know that is a pretense. I expect them to get booted from their hosting platform within a week, also under some pretense. This is just the beginning.
 
#15 ·
We did get a new year starting last week. Shame the calendar went backwards 37 years so we will soon be raising animals on the farm.

Time to reread those and pass them around the family and neighborhood. Quickly find out who your friends really are.

Nemo
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harhib
#18 ·
#19 ·
Google is dropping Parlor from their app store. The big boys are making a statement.
 
#21 ·
#23 ·
Trump literally has a press room *in his house*.

He hasn't been *silenced*, he simply never learned how *to be a President*.

(That's why I never worried about "the nuclear codes" and the like... there is NO WAY he was paying attention when that stuff was explained to him.)

DH
 
#24 ·
Twitter and facebook, and anyone blocking parler including Google and Apple must be shut down immediately. This an absolutely egregious attack and violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with this is a danger to this nation. They should be arrested and tried for treason as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone who things anything differently is also a traitor and should be treated as such.
 
#37 ·
A possible solution that we can already see on the horizon is stopping social media's ability to censor its content. This is not by eliminating Section 230, but by establishing a government body, super partes, to carry out this role. This solution, besides being already known, is also the most dangerous. Zuckeberg and Co. in this film may look like useful idiots, however these actors are perfectly aware of what they are allowing to happen. At the end of the day, what matters to them is the financial result, they probably can't care less of the fact that their media are censored by state agencies especially if they can say: "Don't blame us, don’t you see what you have done?".
Obviously, those who propose it do not want to understand the difference between a censorship exercised by an entrepreneur or his teams on his media, which is totally legitimate and constitutional even if today totally polluted by the legislative system (Section 230), and the one exercised by the government or one of its bodies, which would be totally illegitimate and unconstitutional, no matter how much you want to dream it is super-partes. I emphasize the last part. Even if there were the possibility of having a government body capable of guaranteeing absolute impartiality, their simple existence would already be illegitimate and unconstitutional. This concept also remains valid from a practical point of view as well: what is impartial today may not be so tomorrow. But this is just a detail, the whole idea is simply wrong, period. The ultimate goal is therefore to obtain complete control of Internet communication by the government and now we have finally reached the point where both Washington's left and Washington's right will agree. The former will be able to say that it is absolutely necessary to put a stop to violent retoric, the latter will say that Big Tech cannot be allowed to exclude the conservative dialectic. In short, they will do it for us.
 
#38 ·
I think the only time a private entity's choice to censor the content of speech would be a possible 1st Amendment violation would be if the government urged or pressured the private communications service to do that censorship.

Now, if the tort laws of the US or some State were such that there were a REALISTIC chance, a serious possibility, that Twitter or Facebook or some other service provider could be FOUND LIABLE in court, or penalized by some government agency, for failing to censor certain things, then I'd argue that the government is censoring it, and the 1st Amendment applies. Which would mean there is a very high standard for banning speech--the speech must be so highly offensive and likely to harm people that it falls outside 1st Amendment protection under existing law and published court rulings.

I don't think what Trump has said on Twitter comes close to crossing that line, into non-protected speech, and therefore these private communications platforms CANNOT reasonably fear being held accountable for what Trump said, so then it really is a private matter. Private companies can choose NOT to do business with Trump.
 
#39 ·
Ok, this is a question I have trying to get answered in a way I can understand it. If a certified interpreter refuses to interpret what someone has said, because that interpreter feels what was said may "upset" the person they are interpreting to, should that interpreter lose their certification?

The interpreter has a right to not be an interpreter. They can do something else.
 
#46 ·
There are two (now-ancient) observations that are relevant here.
1) The internet is remarkably resilient and quickly routes around damage.
2) The internet treats censorship as damage.

This'll be a fun thread to revisit on May 1.
I agree, but this is not just the "internet". It's also banks, credit card payment services, and digital security. Without all of these things, you cannot start up much of anything online.

And they're all involved.
 
#44 ·
The left:
"I don't care if bakeries are private companies, they have to serve everyone no matter what".

The right:
"Freedom of religion should allow bakers to refuse to sell their cakes to gay couples".

Libertarians:
"All private businesses should be able to decide who to serve, face the financial consequences and should not be protected by the government."

The right:
"Financial institutions should not be able discriminate against firearms and ammunition enterprises."

The left:
"Banks have all the rights to deny their service to anybody they want."

Libertarians:
"All private businesses should be able to decide who to serve, face the financial consequences and should not be protected by the government."

The right:
"Big Tech should not be allowed cast out the conservative voices."

The left:
"Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, Google, they are all private enterprise and they can set their own rules."

Libertarians:
"All private businesses should be able to decide who to serve, face the financial consequences and should not be protected by the government."

Petal Ingredient Food Vegetable Produce
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top