271–280 of 1001 posts
Question for everyone who's saying "private platform can do whatever." You are against the FDA, EPA, Net Neutrality etc? And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons.
Or the restaurant that denies service to someone wearing a MAGA hat.
"private property, they can do what they want" is indeed a slippery slope.
This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…
Of course, it’s unreasonable to act upon what someone did X years ago.
Question for everyone who's saying "private platform can do whatever." You are against the FDA, EPA, Net Neutrality etc? And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons.
Twitter banned Trump for reasons.
FDA and EPA are government regulatory agencies.
The baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple broke state statutes.
How are any of these things related?
This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…
Will these bans carry over and will they start to affect any who oppose the bans or simply parrot what he says elsewhere?
Will these spawn new social media sites or will they damage existing ones or do both? This is all so fascinating and frightening at the same time. People may want to claim there is no government interference but these sites have for many years recently reacted to the threat of it which in turn effectively is what is happening now.
I am just find this all so bizarre but I think these sites figure they can act now simply because in a short time he will not be in his position of power and lose the bully pulpit which he can use without them
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.
Yup and it might backfire in twitter's face because now apparently there is a mass exodus of conservatives going to platforms like parler. It is very likely that Trump will switch platforms and that will bring pressure on the stock price. I sold my TWTR shares and advise others to do the same.
74 million voters. This is not going to play out well. There's really no coming back from this moment, the technocratic elite have changed American democracy forever. Edit: I mean this in the way Snowden tweeted yesterday, it will be interesting how this plays out for better or worse, but it is a monumental policy shift that will be a date marked in history books.
Question for everyone who's saying "private platform can do whatever." You are against the FDA, EPA, Net Neutrality etc? And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons.
This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…
Never let a good crises go to waste.
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?
In the years since then, what was once a constellation of internet platforms has shrunken and consolidated to only a handful that are the de facto gatekeepers.
Legally, of course, nothing has changed since then. But it's willfully ignoring the unprecedented power of major platforms in shaping popular dialog to compare them to a local supermarket escorting someone out.