321–330 of 391 posts
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Twitter added the rule banning pictures/reports on non-public persons on the first day of the trial.. which also coincidentally was the day Twitters and other companies CEO/CFO's all suddenly resigned; thus making them non-public persons..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn't a public space. It is a privately owned platform.
I'm pretty confident that if a suitable case made it to the supreme court, social media like Twitter would be deemed a de facto public square under the US Constitution. Hopefully then people would apply a little more critical thought, rather than just parroting private vs public. It's clear that at a certain scale, a private space becomes de facto public one, similar to anti-trust legislation breaking up perfectly va…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody prominent is involved. This case is so larded with misplaced expectations. We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated and no reason to think Maxwell has any compromising information if they were. And even if both those assumptions are true there's no reason they'd be pertinent to her trial. Her trial which is happening likely because the prosecutor…
> We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated Isn’t that a reason to follow the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody prominent is involved. This case is so larded with misplaced expectations. We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated and no reason to think Maxwell has any compromising information if they were. And even if both those assumptions are true there's no reason they'd be pertinent to her trial. Her trial which is happening likely because the prosecutor…
> We as of yet have no real proof any prominent people besides Prince Andrew may be tangentially implicated Isn’t that a reason to follow the case?
And in the UK, the media is constrained by stronger libel laws such that they'll sit on their haunches in terms of reporting on things in the case until they are considered factual enough to withstand a UK libel suit. Allegations thrown about in a foreign court of law don't meet that bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they were banned for using sock puppets to popularize their tweets?
If so, I want BrooklynDad_Defiant, the Palmer Report, Duty to Warn, the Gravel Institute, and ReallyAmerican1 removed immediately. There is no way these folks always manage to be at the top of every trend organically.
Of course BitwiseFool and I have no proof beyond our observations so please don't ask for proof of Twitters internal workings. Note we have no proof of why this Maxwell trial account was suspended other than twitters word. They provided us with no data or proof. This is very common now. Folks take the word of tech companies as hard fact and any other speculation is not allowed.
Any twitter employee want to use a throwaway account to set the record straight? Doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few months ago I created an account for a website I have, followed a few accounts, tweeted once and was then banned for literally no reason. All of this happened in less than 24h. After that, I try to avoid Twitter when possible. It's also a cesspool of entitled pseudo-intellectuals (both left and right leaning), so I don't miss it much, honestly.
I signed up and was immediately banned after following 3 different accounts in fairly rapid succession. I had already been "following" these accounts for some time by directly going to their twitter pages on the website and had them bookmarked, so I just went to each person directly from the bookmarks and hit "follow." This is apparently "Unusual activity." In order to prove I wasn't a bot and continue to use their s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you so confident that Epstein was murdered?
I mean....
* Very powerful people procured his services for something illegal * Epstein had incriminating evidence on those powerful people proving their illegal activities * Powerful people knew what evidence he had, believed he would leverage it to reduce his punishment * Powerful people hired ninjas to invade the detention center, evade all the cameras (all but one camera was working and recorded the approaches to his cell), murder Epstein to make it look exactly like a suicide, leave no traces, no witnesses <- Maybe, getting pretty ludicrous by now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thomas might write that in a dissent (in fact, he already has). But he won't find a lot of allies on SCOTUS. However, the key distinction between limited public forums and private forums is that the government creates the former. Twitter is private, and it has constitutionally-protected freedom of association to choose who it can associate with and constitutionally-protected freedom from being compelled to speak cert…
You are talking about prior case law, while I'm talking about likely future trajectory of case law. The constitution protects what the supreme court deems it to protect, within some reasonable interpretation of the text. There is no text in the constitution protecting abortions either, yet we have the Roe v Wade result. Here was the finding: "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution…