111–120 of 1001 posts
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
Finally ... ding dong the witch is dead. I would like to know how much revenue Twitter and Facebook made off of this POS. Doubtful we will ever hear such things.
I think the extremely online political junkies vastly overestimate the amount of money Twitter derives from Donald Trump's tweets. Most people just use Twitter to follow their friends and celebrities and don't hang on to his every word. They were mostly refraining from taking a harder line on Trump because they were worried about retaliation from the Republicans. Now that Trump's out office and the Democrats control…
Of course we've seen intense polarization because of this, but all that aside it's easy to see why a company beholden to shareholders would hesitate for so long.
If no tv network will carry his remarks live, and no social network will give him a posting account, then he has no way of communicating with the American people and it seems pretty difficult to make the case that he is able to carry out his duties. So I guess what I'm saying is: invoke the 25th amendment because he got kicked of Twitter.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
They didn’t just look at the tweets; they looked at how they’re actually being received. I think that’s a crucial distinction.
Me thinks this will have huge implications for big tech. A Pandora’s box was just opened.
That box was opened long ago.
* A world where they weren't the arbiters of truthiness, and were a place that supported 'free speech'.
* A world where they decide what posts to show, and it's their job to moderate the platform.
The decision to take the second approach is actually a pretty recent development. These companies can no longer hide behind the 'we are just a platform for free speech' line of thinking, because they have now decided that's not what they are about.
Me thinks this will have huge implications for big tech. A Pandora’s box was just opened.
That private businesses can keep people off of their properties?
If the second point is not true anymore... it's going to start getting regulated like a utility. Your electric and phone providers can't simply decide to stop serving people it doesn't like, and likely, Twitter won't either.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.