Twitter silencing conservatives again - Woman who posted Trigglypuff shadowbanned

[Endus]

Again, it's not the government doing this. Their ToS says they can terminate an account for no reason at all. If you don't like it, don't use twitter.

Some people have this really weird sense of entitlement to a privately-owned platform that they're provided access to for free.

[Wells]

Why would Twitter be banning people for being conservative? What's the motivation even supposed to be?

[Fencers]

Would you say what they're doing is ethical?

No. It's clear in their terms of service. And as I said, it is totally irrational to think a company has an obligation to allow you to express whatever you feel. They do not and their terms are clear on this expressly.

[Graeham]

I feel bad for you then. Tons of way funnier shit in this world. Especially when you stop caring about inconsequential shit like dumb college students.

I'm not sure why you'd feel bad about someone finding an internet meme hilarious. I'd like to think my sense of humour is quite varied - so it's not as if I'm losing any sleep over such things.

[Cosmic Janitor]

A drag indeed.. when it is the government. Otherwise, one should not care.

I would agree, but with the monopoly status both twitter and facebook have I somehow don't feel very good just ignoring them. They have too much reach and influence to not be at least concerned if they start dictating the way the political discourse is going. As if fox news wasn't bad enough ...

[Eliseus]

Again, it's not the government doing this. Their ToS says they can terminate an account for no reason at all. If you don't like it, don't use twitter.

Again, the issue isn't what is ToS. IT'S THAT TWITTER CLAIMS THEY AREN'T DOING THIS.

[Endus]

One is basically a customer of Twitter.

I think it's even worse than that. Something people need to start realizing that, if you get access to a service for free, you aren't a "customer". You're the product. In the case of companies like Twitter, access to you is being sold to their actual customers, the advertisers.

Look at it this way; you're the Girls going wild. Girls Gone Wild isn't paying you to flash your metaphorical ladybumps, they're just getting you to sign a release. The pervy dudes who buy the videos are the customers. Complaining because GGW won't use your footage is a bit silly. And that's what being banned from Twitter is; them not using your "footage" to sell product to their customers.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, the issue isn't what is ToS. IT'S THAT TWITTER CLAIMS THEY AREN'T DOING THIS.

And there's no real evidence that they are. Why not rant that Twitter's being run by aliens to study human interaction before the Reaping? Same difference, without evidence.

[Fencers]

I would agree, but with the monopoly status both twitter and facebook have I somehow don't feel very good just ignoring them. They have too much reach and influence to not be at least concerned if they start dictating the way the political discourse is going. As if fox news wasn't bad enough ...

Culture is in part a war of ideas. Get more effective than the other guy at spreading yours- that is the sum total of the societal game from interpersonal relationships to government to the aforementioned culture.

There is no special nobility of mankind.

[Eliseus]

Yes, Twitter has no actual obligation to allow any user to express whatever they want. Dislike it? use another platform. They are a company, for profit. Not the government.

One is basically a customer of Twitter. They can deny you service whenever and for whatever they feel it- without having to check with you or anyone else for that matter.

This makes no sense, you are doing a strawman to the argument now by completely neglecting that Twitter openly says they don't do this. You are trying to validate being objective of other peoples views by declaring they should use another platform. If this was the case you wouldn't be using Twitter anymore since everyone would leave, but hey, maybe that is what you want, a platform you can QQ about random crap that no one cares about and not worry about any objective views to that.

[Deleted]

Its funny how some retards here say that its their right to do w/e the fuck they want and censor w/e post they want, as its a private company.
And i agree but theres also a moral question, what if google suddently decide to only display the far right news and the far right views in the search results (news and political searches)?

People can switch to another search engine you can say, but you would be a damned dumb mother fucker if you think at a global scale people will switch to another search engine.



What about a politcian, its not illegal to switch your ideas 180 degrees once you get elected. People can un elect you after 4 years yes?




When it comes to Media, even though private company, its a sensible topic as it influences people. As you can see with the migrants. At what point does bad intentioned BUT legal Media harm a country?

[Graeham]

Some people have this really weird sense of entitlement to a privately-owned platform that they're provided access to for free.

To be fair social media is such a huge part of today's society that it's hard not to use it on some level. It's literally everywhere - most businesses use it. Most celebrities use it. Most politicians use it. To pretend as if it isn't relevant to political debate is deceptive - and it's very dubious for such businesses to defile the right to express certain political beliefs if they're going to promote and support others.

Obviously it should happen within reason, though.

[Eliseus]

And there's no real evidence that they are. Why not rant that Twitter's being run by aliens to study human interaction before the Reaping? Same difference, without evidence.

So the people who have used substantial proof to back their claims aren't real? I forgot that is how you work, make up weird analogies to validate your point. I guess Facebook doesn't have a problem also even though past employees said they do. This is all a fabricated mess to somehow give conservatives more attention, man I hate them.

[Wells]

Its funny how some retards here say that its their right to do w/e the fuck they want and censor w/e post they want, as its a private company.
And i agree but theres also a moral question, what if google suddently decide to only display the far right news and the far right views in the search results (news and political searches)?

Then they'd lose business, which is why they won't do it. And which is why its incredibly hard to believe there's some conspiracy against conservatives on Twitter.

[Mormolyce]

Everything about this account screams "legitimate ban".

[greatestfall]

Say you don't want conservative types or ideas talked about through your shit.

what a wonderful world this would be, too bad we have to see the crazy on there anyways.

[Endus]

So the people who have used substantial proof to back their claims aren't real?

I've seen no such proof. I've seen a lot of people who claim to have it, but it inevitably turns out to just be a lot of people echoing back the same unsourced and baseless statements, along with carefully-curated and deliberately weighted examples that fail to be convincing, if you look at them with an open mind rather than desperately hoping for confirmation.

Persecution complex, plus confirmation bias. That's all I've seen thus far.

[Fencers]

This makes no sense, you are doing a strawman to the argument now by completely neglecting that Twitter openly says they don't do this.

There is no evidence that they are 'doing this'. Just arm wagging and identifying oneself as a victim.

Maybe some tweeters got banned for being dicks? We don't know. And they don't have to tell us either.

You are trying to validate being objective of other peoples views by declaring they should use another platform.

I have no investment in Twitter. I have an untouched account for almost a year now. I said something about pancakes most likely.

However, if one is so sure there is a specific bias and campaign to censor particular views on Twitter- why use it? Why claim outlandish things that denigrate your own assertions? Seek other platforms or create your own if all are unsuitable.

Twitter is a company. They do not have to allow anyone to post anything they want- that's it in total.

[Eliseus]

i'd say that makes it ethical...

- - - Updated - - -



Show me actual proof of it beyond a troll getting a temp ban. That would be a concerted effort to remove all conservative voices from twitter. Let's start with the big ones like the Tea Party and Fox News... Weird, they're still there. Must just be trolls who go out of their way to start shit that are getting banned.

You have someone giving you literal proof on the first page. Come on, you at least read that far before arguing right? Let alone following Mark Kern for this Legacy server stuff has shown many more censored posts. Especially after that SJW girl went on a rant about how evil he and Legacy people are or whatever it was. Really forgettable sadly.

[Mormolyce]

Its funny how some retards here say that its their right to do w/e the fuck they want and censor w/e post they want, as its a private company.
And i agree but theres also a moral question, what if google suddently decide to only display the far right news and the far right views in the search results (news and political searches)?

People can switch to another search engine you can say, but you would be a damned dumb mother fucker if you think at a global scale people will switch to another search engine.

Maybe because there wouldn't be enough interest in a conservative search engine?

That said, Conservapedia still apparently exists. LOL.

[Eliseus]

Okay, I'm just leaving this thread, not getting in another argument with Mods who don't like the proof given to them and turn another thread into "my opinion is right, I don't like your proof".