Twitter suspends account of Breitbart "tech" editor

[AndaliteBandit]

I'm aware of that, I'm saying that leftists et all triggered and can't seem to understand how on earth a gay could disagree with their narrative, they get attacked by the left worse than the right does for challenging their ideas

"We ban drunks from driving because they’re a danger to others. Isn’t it time we did the same to trolls?"

If you had to guess, would you suppose that's a quote from a conservative or a liberal SJW?

[Zolaris192]

"We ban drunks from driving because they’re a danger to others. Isn’t it time we did the same to trolls?"

If you had to guess, would you suppose that's a quote from a conservative or a liberal SJW?

Neither, it's a quote from an overly sensitive butt hurt man child who's parents never taught this person that their feelings don't carry weight or have rights

If this perpetually offended professional victim narrative continues we won't have any rights left

[AndaliteBandit]

Neither, it's a quote from an overly sensitive butt hurt man child who's parents never taught this person that their feelings don't carry weight or have rights

If this perpetually offended professional victim narrative continues we won't have any rights left

And his name is Milo Yiannopoulos.

[PACOX]

Conservatives are cool with banning particular people from their shops in the name of freedom of speech and expression because their morales don't allow them cater a gay marriage (or whatever they're hating that week) but its not okay another private institution to turn around and ban them?

Thats why many have become permanently tone deaf to certain political parties and views.

[Deleted]

Conservatives are cool with banning particular people from their shops in the name of freedom of speech and expression because their morales don't allow them cater a gay marriage (or whatever they're hating that week) but its not okay another private institution to turn around and ban them?

Thats why many have become permanently tone deaf to certain political parties and views.

Your argument would be valid if Twatter was a private company, but its public one. Public institutions shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, however private companies should be allowed to refuse a service for whatever the reason they want.

[Ragnarocket]

Your argument would be valid if Twatter was a private company, but its public one. Public institutions shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, however private companies should be allowed to refuse a service for whatever the reason they want.

Twitter is a private enterprise. They definitely have the right to kick people off of their platform if they feel like it, especially if a person does not conform to the Terms of Service that you agree to before using said platform.

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/20/1223...irst-amendment

The problem is less that Twitter doesn't have the right to do it (they do) but that they only use that power in certain circumstances rather than doing it all the time.

[Deleted]

Twitter is a private enterprise. They definitely have the right to kick people off of their platform if they feel like it, especially if a person does not conform to the Terms of Service that you agree to before using said platform.

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/20/1223...irst-amendment

The problem is less that Twitter doesn't have the right to do it (they do) but that they only use that power in certain circumstances rather than doing it all the time.

It's not private, because its publicly traded - meaning public investors have access to Twatter shares via stock exchanges among others.

[sethman75]

This reeks of you better say what i like or your a hate preacher.

I thought actors who make a living by being in the public all the time would be immune to 140chars of someones opinion.

SJW agenda driven horse shit is more likely the reason this guy was banned

[AndaliteBandit]

This reeks of you better say what i like or your a hate preacher.

I thought actors who make a living by being in the public all the time would be immune to 140chars of someones opinion.

SJW agenda driven horse shit is more likely the reason this guy was banned

But we ban drunks from driving because they’re a danger to others. Isn't it time we did the same to trolls?

[Deleted]

Conservatives are cool with banning particular people from their shops in the name of freedom of speech and expression because their morales don't allow them cater a gay marriage (or whatever they're hating that week) but its not okay another private institution to turn around and ban them?

Thats why many have become permanently tone deaf to certain political parties and views.

Sorry but the diffrence in scale of companies prevents it from being a valid comparison.
The worse that can happen to you when dealing with a small bakery is to choose a different small bakery.
There is no alternative to twitter that provides you with just as big platform.

[Ragnarocket]

It's not private, because its publicly traded - meaning public investors have access to Twatter shares via stock exchanges among others.

It's a publicly traded company, correct. But I said that it was a private enterprise because it isn't managed by the government:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...nterprise.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

Twitter has the right to set its terms and services and reject anyone from using the service if they do not obey those agreed upon rules.

[Deleted]

The people that can't accept a Ghostbusters remake should really grow up.

Nope. The people that cant accept the people that can't accept a Ghostbusters remake are the the actual ones that should really grow up.
How miserable one has to be to be affacted by something as passing as negative opinion... on a piece of popcorn entertainment no less.

[Ragnarocket]

Nope. The people that cant accept the people that can't accept a Ghostbusters remake are the the actual ones that should really grow up.
How miserable one has to be to be affacted by something as passing as negative opinion... on a piece of popcorn entertainment no less.

This is definitely one of the bigger problems here and it led to the main issue. Leslie was screaming on Twitter for about 2 hours prior to Milo even getting brought into the discussion. Apparently people were not allowed to critique the movie. If you didn't like it then OBVIOUSLY it was because they chose to use 4 women instead of 4 guys.

Or...maybe...JUST MAYBE, we didn't like the movie because it was a bad movie? Nah, that doesn't make sense.

[jdbond592]

I really really want to beat the crap out of morons who have no god damn clue what first amendment is and what "freedom of speech" entails. Stop using the dumb line and go read our constitution. Or better yet, stick to people of your "intelligence"...

- - - Updated - - -

It's a publicly traded company, correct. But I said that it was a private enterprise because it isn't managed by the government:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...nterprise.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

Twitter has the right to set its terms and services and reject anyone from using the service if they do not obey those agreed upon rules.

Don't use logic. Anyone who uses "freedom of speech" speech every-time someone kicks them in nut for saying something stupid won't get it in first place.

[Skalm]

It's a publicly traded company, correct. But I said that it was a private enterprise because it isn't managed by the government:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...nterprise.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

Twitter has the right to set its terms and services and reject anyone from using the service if they do not obey those agreed upon rules.

Correct, they should be able to set and uphold their ToS. But...the issue people have is that they are selective on whom they enforce this ToS against. It is known fact that they are more lenient with their Liberal crowd than the others.

[Deleted]

It's a publicly traded company, correct. But I said that it was a private enterprise because it isn't managed by the government:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...nterprise.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

Twitter has the right to set its terms and services and reject anyone from using the service if they do not obey those agreed upon rules.

Regarding what you are saying about TOS it's very true - they have every right to shape it as they seem fit, as long as it does not break the laws. What I meant by my post is that publicly traded companies should not be discriminatory like the government entities should not be. However private entities should have the right to refuse the service as they like (within reason of course).

[jdbond592]

Sorry but the diffrence in scale of companies prevents it from being a valid comparison.
The worse that can happen to you when dealing with a small bakery is to choose a different small bakery.
There is no alternative to twitter that provides you with just as big platform.

Ofcourse there is an alternative. Conservatives are all smart and rich and whatever so why don't you run your own propaganda network?

[Deleted]

Ofcourse there is an alternative. Conservatives are all smart and rich and whatever so why don't you run your own propaganda network?

Stop being so obtuse.

[jdbond592]

Correct, they should be able to set and uphold their ToS. But...the issue people have is that they are selective on whom they enforce this ToS against. It is known fact that they are more lenient with their Liberal crowd than the others.

It's like saying that I support people who support my idea. Outrageous I say, Outrageous. if Only I had a label like "fair and balanced".

- - - Updated - - -

Stop being so obtuse.

Stop being so bu...hurt and stop hiding your frustration behind bullshit.

[Ragnarocket]

Correct, they should be able to set and uphold their ToS. But...the issue people have is that they are selective on whom they enforce this ToS against. It is known fact that they are more lenient with their Liberal crowd than the others.

Which is what I said before

Twitter is a private enterprise. They definitely have the right to kick people off of their platform if they feel like it, especially if a person does not conform to the Terms of Service that you agree to before using said platform.

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/20/1223...irst-amendment

The problem is less that Twitter doesn't have the right to do it (they do) but that they only use that power in certain circumstances rather than doing it all the time.

I feel like I need to say everything I believe at once or someone on one side of the issue is going to call me out. xD