Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

Post by sieabahlpark » Wed, May 11, 2022, 3:15 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #218

timr wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected." Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?

Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or mo…

Post by ece » Wed, May 11, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

md2020 wrote: post #164

prezjordan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lori Lightfoot is neither on the left (she is squarely a centrist), nor the President of the United States claiming that the election was stolen.

You’re splitting hairs. She’s making a “call to arms”, as mayor of one of the largest cities in the US, over an unsubstantiated claim that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the right to gay marriage, which they are not doing and have not indicated they will do. Seems pretty analogous to me.

Post by phailhaus » Wed, May 11, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

seanw444 wrote: post #153

Bud wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's been proven guilty. He did it on live tv. The fact that he still has enough political power to avoid execution for sedition, or any responsibility whatsoever for this crime, does not have any effect on the truth value of my statement.

Man it's a scary state of affairs when people unflinchingly support execution of a President that literally didn't incite a riot. And that they think it was a genuine attempt at a coup. All I'm saying is, I think it's pretty obvious which side has most of the guns in this day in age. I don't recall seeing many armed that day. Actually I don't recall hearing about any . Except for, of course, all the obvious undercove…

Post by louky » Wed, May 11, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

bogantech wrote: post #222

nonameiguess wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short-term isn't really that short. Witness all the tales of teachers not being able to admit to being gay in the 90s without risking getting fired, or don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP, which is now reversing course less than a few years later as they find the cultural tides shifting away from moral majority, satan…

> don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration?

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 11, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

whitepaint wrote: post #141

andrewzah wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians don't have the right to be on a private website. They already have official channels to communicate. Twitter has every right to ban Putin, or Trump, or Duterte, etc.

Where did I say that politicians have the right to stay on a private website? Yes, Twitter has the right to ban people. As do restaurants not serve certain people. But if a restaurant decides to not serve Jews let's say, I will obviously condemn them. If you believe in free speech you should have absolutely condemned Twitter when they banned the president.