Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Oh, you think they would ban a user that hasn't broken the ToS?
    Twitter acting in an illogical manner that would actively harm their business is really the only time in which the argument he wants to make holds any water.

    But like, it's absolutely fantasy so it's genuinely not worth even bothering with it.

  2. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I expect people to be able to back up their claims. If not, that's fine... I'll take your retraction.

    I have no problem if Twitter wants to ban Nazi shit stains like Trump. I get that you want to clutch at pearls for your guy, but he got booted for a very good reason.
    You literally quoted my post on Trump's ban, and restated it like what I said, repeated, would be hurtful. Ok, dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Oh, you think they would ban a user that hasn't broken the ToS?
    Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    So, you don't know that sites have posting rules? My apologies, I didn't realize that we were working with such a high level of ignorance.

    Trump's call to violence and racism was CLEARLY a rules violation. How you don't see that is why you're still posting the above drivel.
    It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You literally quoted my post on Trump's ban, and restated it like what I said, repeated, would be hurtful. Ok, dude.


    Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?


    It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.
    You're free to pretend that Donald Trump was banned from Twitter for literally no reason other than being right-wing, but please don't insist that the rest of us share in your delusion.

  4. #264
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,139
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so.
    What Twitter rules does conservative ideology break?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    You're free to pretend that Donald Trump was banned from Twitter for literally no reason other than being right-wing, but please don't insist that the rest of us share in your delusion.
    Maybe that reason is part of Trump ideology...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  5. #265
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,266
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.
    There is no unequal application and no appeal. You just think that's the case because your echo chamber told you to think it. Catch up. (am I doing that right? )

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    What Twitter rules does conservative ideology break?
    That was very nicely done.

  6. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?
    You claimed, like people like Twitter and Facebook are banning people, for being a certain ideology or twisting their rules to ban people based on their ideology. And I have yet to see it. If anything, Trump should have been banned long before he was actually banned, because he CLEARLY violated their rules several times in his 4 shitty years as the worst president in history.

  7. #267
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And what country is yours?
    I've said were i am countless times by now, just read my posts. Its not Spain, lol, even some you damn ianques think it is.


  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You literally quoted my post on Trump's ban, and restated it like what I said, repeated, would be hurtful. Ok, dude.


    Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?


    It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.
    I already stated they should be free to kick off whoever they wanted. And, since we already saw that on the Trumpster subreddit, the world didn't collapse. You tried to push the narrative that Twitter was stretching their own rules and bending over backwards to ban his ass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  9. #269
    How long are y'all gonna argue about who agrees more with Twitter? :P
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    I've said were i am countless times by now, just read my posts. Its not Spain, lol, even some you damn ianques think it is.
    My apologies, I thought this was about Spain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    You claimed, like people like Twitter and Facebook are banning people, for being a certain ideology or twisting their rules to ban people based on their ideology. And I have yet to see it. If anything, Trump should have been banned long before he was actually banned, because he CLEARLY violated their rules several times in his 4 shitty years as the worst president in history.
    Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

    So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result. That’s not a lasting peace on social media. And it’s why Clarence Thomas was partially right to raise the question in principle. The hypotheticals to make people think harder is if they agree that Twitter may ban all candidates of one political party, citing ToS, or whether a building owner holding a public city council comment period can turn off the lights and expel members when they might not like what’s being discussed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I already stated they should be free to kick off whoever they wanted. And, since we already saw that on the Trumpster subreddit, the world didn't collapse. You tried to push the narrative that Twitter was stretching their own rules and bending over backwards to ban his ass.
    I don’t think the world collapsed when Trump banned a user. Did you? I mean, if that really is the operating principle here, I’m sure users can discover the most obvious workarounds to reading public tweets.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  12. #272
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,843
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.
    Well, this particular point is just objectively false.

    The point there is not whether you have access to respond to Trump's tweets, the issue is who is banning you from access to responding to Trump's tweets.

    If I host a club where people regularly engage in anti-US comedy shows, and I ban a guy for being a racist dingwongle, that's not an infringement of his freedom of speech.

    If the government tries to arrest a comic for entering my club to do their act because it's gonna make fun of the President, that is an infringement of free speech.

    In either case, they're banned from the club. What makes the difference is what entity is doing the banning.

    So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result.
    No, one side believes in freedom of speech and freedom of association (the side that's fine with how things went down), and the other side is a bunch of feels-before-facts reactionary idiots who'll freely shit on civil rights and freedoms whenever they get used in a way that isn't to their benefit.

    Only one of those sides actually has a case. The other is just a bunch of proto-fascists gearing up.

  13. #273
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,139
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.
    This is off topic... you are arguing for universal Twitter accounts and universal access to Twitter.

    Does government provide a subscription to Fox News, so you can interact with the president on his regular call ins?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    In either case, they're banned from the club. What makes the difference is what entity is doing the banning.
    Just a reminder, GOP congressman is now complaining that Biden doesn’t post juicy stuff on Twitter. He isn’t complaining that Twitter changed its policy concerning presidents. That means the issue isn’t the platform, but the individual using said platform in a way that no other president has... or even seems to have any intent in using.

    This is a unique problem for presidents, who treat their presidency, as a marketing opportunity. All other presidents are completley unaffected by this, without altering policy.

    Edit: It’s like I keep pointing out... Why are all GOP events that include Trump, based in south Florida? Why isn’t Trump campaigning, as he did while president? The answer to those questions is why this whole issue isn’t about social media, but a unique attribute of a specific president.
    Last edited by Felya; 2021-04-13 at 02:56 PM.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  14. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

    So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result. That’s not a lasting peace on social media. And it’s why Clarence Thomas was partially right to raise the question in principle. The hypotheticals to make people think harder is if they agree that Twitter may ban all candidates of one political party, citing ToS, or whether a building owner holding a public city council comment period can turn off the lights and expel members when they might not like what’s being discussed.

    - - - Updated - - -


    I don’t think the world collapsed when Trump banned a user. Did you? I mean, if that really is the operating principle here, I’m sure users can discover the most obvious workarounds to reading public tweets.
    The world didn't end when FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

    That doesn't make it acceptable

    Trump chose to deem it official communications, so you are doing nothing more than supporting corrupt government.

    Meanwhile, Twitter is free to ban violent racists, because the First Amendment is a thing.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-13 at 04:51 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  15. #275
    I am Murloc! Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Re-read my last five posts. I claimed first amendment protections are implicated whether Trump bans one user from interacting with his tweets, or whether Twitter bans several million users from interacting with his tweets. I was met with variations on rules, outright dismissal, and ignoring the point.

    So, this is heading towards future legislation and court battles. One side wants it to be first amendment when they favor one result, and not first amendment when they favor another result. That’s not a lasting peace on social media. And it’s why Clarence Thomas was partially right to raise the question in principle. The hypotheticals to make people think harder is if they agree that Twitter may ban all candidates of one political party, citing ToS, or whether a building owner holding a public city council comment period can turn off the lights and expel members when they might not like what’s being discussed.

    - - - Updated - - -


    I don’t think the world collapsed when Trump banned a user. Did you? I mean, if that really is the operating principle here, I’m sure users can discover the most obvious workarounds to reading public tweets.
    Do you it know the difference between Twitter as a platform and a Twitter account?

    If not, then I suggest you go learn before you make more baseless points.

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Well, this particular point is just objectively false.

    The point there is not whether you have access to respond to Trump's tweets, the issue is who is banning you from access to responding to Trump's tweets.
    You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    This is off topic... you are arguing for universal Twitter accounts and universal access to Twitter.
    Clarence Thomas went off-topic in his response, and this thread is about Clarence Thomas's response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The world didn't end when FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

    That doesn't make it acceptable

    Trump chose to deem it official communications, so you are doing nothing more than supporting corrupt government.

    Meanwhile, Twitter is free to ban violent racists, because the First Amendment is a thing.
    Then don't use the argument that "when X happened, the world didn't collapse."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Noxx79 View Post
    Do you it know the difference between Twitter as a platform and a Twitter account?

    If not, then I suggest you go learn before you make more baseless points.
    Same question as previous, do you care in a public forum if you can't respond to a President's tweets because he blocked you, or because Twitter blocked him? When you address your city council, do you care if you get thrown out by a member, or by the building's owner that doesn't like what's discussed? You're acting like this isn't about the first amendment, so establish some relevance, perhaps by quoting Clarence Thomas or the Second Circuit's decision that was appealed then vacated.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  17. #277
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.
    It was actually pretty narrow, and didn't call "tweets/responses" a public forum, but specifically Trump's tweets, as he is POTUS so different rules apply to him when it comes to the First Amendment - https://knightcolumbia.org/content/s...ics-on-twitter

    It's why they refused to review the case after their ruling. You keep trying to expand this narrow ruling beyond its scope. The only First Amendment protection was from being blocked by a sitting POTUS.

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.


    Clarence Thomas went off-topic in his response, and this thread is about Clarence Thomas's response.


    Then don't use the argument that "when X happened, the world didn't collapse."
    That's because Twitter is free to boot Trump's racist ass, no matter how much it outrages you. They are free to boot all the liberals, good for them.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Clarence Thomas is a fucking dirtbag who hates the First Amendment. Fuck him, and fuck everyone else who wants to take it away.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  19. #279
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,139
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Clarence Thomas went off-topic in his response, and this thread is about Clarence Thomas's response.
    No, he didn’t... he didn’t have issue calling it a common carrier... he didn’t pretend it was about freedom of speech... pick a lane.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Same question as previous, do you care in a public forum if you can't respond to a President's tweets because he blocked you, or because Twitter blocked him?
    Yes, because a president blocking me, is different than the platform blocking me. It’s why I don’t believe a president should block people, while believing that Fox News shouldn’t become a utility, just because it’s Trump’s favorite call in channel.

    You are only targeting social media, not media in general... why is that?
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  20. #280
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,843
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.
    That decision completely confirms my position, and contradicts yours. So I really don't know where you think you're going, here.

    Same question as previous, do you care in a public forum if you can't respond to a President's tweets because he blocked you, or because Twitter blocked him?
    Only the former. Because the difference matters.

    When you address your city council, do you care if you get thrown out by a member, or by the building's owner that doesn't like what's discussed?
    You realize it would be stupid for the city council to hold important meetings in some private establishment, right? Which is why they don't?

    Trump's an idiot, and that's what led to the issues.

    You're acting like this isn't about the first amendment, so establish some relevance, perhaps by quoting Clarence Thomas or the Second Circuit's decision that was appealed then vacated.
    Use of social media is only going to involve the 1st Amendment when it's government actions taken to restrict communications on that platform. Which it was, when Trump wanted to ban people for ideological reasons from his Twitter. And wouldn't be, if it were Twitter banning them for TOS violations.

    Here's the text of the 1st Amendment, since people seem to constantly forget what it says;

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Note the first word, there. Congress shall make no laws that do such things. It says nothing about rules private citizens can implement on their own property.

    The 1st Amendment only restricts government action. It has no relevance to any other actor. Twitter literally cannot violate the 1st Amendment, not unless the government is the entity forcing them to take that action in the first place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •