41–50 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's always C-SPAN. She hasn't been censored. She's only been denied a company's message amplification product. Goofball isn't a protected class, so Twitter is under no obligation to serve her.
What would government censorship look like to you? If someone criticizes a government policy, and a private platform censors this person after nudging from the state (which isn't in dispute), is that not censorship?
I’m not sure what she said, but given the amount of reversals and “facts-later-questioned” concerning this virus, I’d be interested to see if she ever would have it reinstated if she were right about the key points concerning her ban.
[flagged]
I don’t care what she said, it is not the job of private businesses to censor elected officials. And yes, I know they can but that does not mean they should .
Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The argument "I know they can but that does not mean they should" doesn't imply that when they don't do something they shouldn't do they lose the ability to do it... I shouldn't be a jerk, but I do believe I have the legal right to be a jerk, so I guess by your argument I need to be a jerk and I guess no one should even call me out for it? That doesn't make any sense: Twitter currently can do this stuff; and yet, despite that, they shouldn't.
Elected officials shouldn't have to rely on Twitter or other social media platforms to communicate with their constituencies. This woman seems like a loon to me, but she's a loon with a democratic mandate. If social media is going to be the default communication medium, then perhaps it needs regulation to clarify its relationship with elected officials.
> Ms. Greene’s official Congressional account, @RepMTG, remains active because tweets from that account did not violate the service’s rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She made repetitive tweets that Omicron proves that vaccines don't work.
Okay, but do you think that a single person following her Twitter is going to say, “Wow, Twitter censored her because she was wrong”? Of course not. They are going to be livid and more determined in their belief. Anyone defending vaccine should be angry at Twitter for making the situation worse.
I don’t care what she said, it is not the job of private businesses to censor elected officials. And yes, I know they can but that does not mean they should .
Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
I don't care about the musings of idiotic politicians (and most of them are indeed idiots), but it rubs me the wrong way that Twitter is preventing the people from hearing where their tax dollars are going, and that Twitter has decided to be the arbiter of truth for society. Also, according to the article, it seems like her strikes were for subjective comments. If this is the case, that strikes me as doubly wrong. Ac…
I’m assuming the “government database” is VEARS, which is using raw, unverified data. It would be like if someone took NextDoor or Shotspotter reports to derive crime statistics.
I'm assuming it's something like the numbers of vaccine complications reports have gone up in objective numbers but not relative to numbers of vaccinations and that could look scary on a graph - or something like that.
But why do I have to guess or search out the information myself? I would think a news article could and should easily incorporate this.
The big problem with this reporting style is that reality could be either Twitter unjustifiably censoring people because they don't like their politics by making harsh rule interpretations, or MTG repeatedly sharing harmful misinformation and deserving a ban. Because the NYT won't actually show information the reader is left not knowing and likely believing an interpretation based on what they thought going in to the article.
Elected officials shouldn't have to rely on Twitter or other social media platforms to communicate with their constituencies. This woman seems like a loon to me, but she's a loon with a democratic mandate. If social media is going to be the default communication medium, then perhaps it needs regulation to clarify its relationship with elected officials.
It's funny when politicians with entire staff committed to disseminating information complain about censorship.