Trump just lost his twitter forever.

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
319
151
43
Here
No surprise. Disgusting and extremely wrong, but not a surprise. The social media giants have officially become the newest propaganda arm of the democrat party. They are on a purge right now banning and suspending many major figures who dare question the party line under the excuse that saying anything against official doctrine is "inciting violence".

Because, you know, saying we should all go out and punch these racist republicans in the face and burn cities to the ground, that's perfectly acceptable. But saying you're not planning to attend an inauguration ceremony, why that's just you giving super secret coded orders to your nazi brethren to launch a civil war.
 
Mar 14, 2020
919
231
43
They don't want their platform used so Trump can send a wink wink nudge nudge message to a MAGA nutter to cause harm on Jan 20th. It's safe to blow people up because the God Emperor said he won't be in the audience.

The purge was a bunch of accounts spewing Q Anon BS.
 

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
319
151
43
Here
Yeah, funny how that works. As long as it's someone on the right, it's inciting violence or "Q Anon BS" if any message could in any remote way possibly maybe be somewhat interpreted by a nut as a secret code to perhapse do something potentially harmful. And often times you don't even need that much. You'll just automatically have your post removed so that after the damage is already done to any potential monetization value they can say "Whoopsie, this didn't actually violate any rules. We'll just put this back, but we got our eye on you, you naughty, naughty boy/girl."

Meanwhile if you're on the left you can pretty much spew whatever vile, disgusting, hateful rhetoric you want. You have to really, REALLY work at it to get Facebook or Twitter to decide to take any kind of action against you.
 
Mar 14, 2020
919
231
43
He could have been banned by Twitter a hundred different times and if anyone else posted the crap he did, they would have been insta banned. He got a free pass before because he is the Pres.

Also...it's their game. They get to make the rules. Don't like them go play a Parler game instead.
 

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
319
151
43
Here
So apparently there's some people arguing that banning the president on Twitter is dangerous because if China fires nukes at us, he can't take out his phone and tweet everybody a warning.

Even though I find the banning unjust and completely warranted, I gotta say that that is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard for not banning someone. One would hope that if an attack like that happened, the president would have bigger concerns than tweeting about it.
 

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
319
151
43
Here
Also...it's their game. They get to make the rules.
Ah, here we go. I was wondering when that would come up. This is the reason Section 230 has been an issue lately. Nobody can argue the fact that social media has become the new public space, replacing newspapers, magazines, t.v. shows, etc. For their part, the social media companies have advertised themselves as a platform where anybody can post anything as long as it's not outright hate speech or porn or something. But lately they've been acting as publishers, editing and removing content that no rational human being could classify as offensive to that degree and pushing a specific political narrative under the guise of removing hate speech or inciting violence. So where exactly do you draw that line that they can have the authority of a publisher but the protections of a platform?
 
Last edited:

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
319
151
43
Here
That is up to the Senate Committee on Commerce, soon the be lead by the Democrats to decide.
Exactly. It's up to a political party which is currently benefiting greatly from the misdeeds of said social media companies. You really think they would take any steps to put a stop to it since it damages their political opponents so badly?
 
Mar 14, 2020
919
231
43
Exactly. It's up to a political party which is currently benefiting greatly from the misdeeds of said social media companies. You really think they would take any steps to put a stop to it since it damages their political opponents so badly?
Don't like it? Feel free to vote for someone who doesn't have a problem getting rid of 230. This forum ceases to exist on that day.
 

Glurin

Active member
Jan 6, 2021
319
151
43
Here
Don't like it? Feel free to vote for someone who doesn't have a problem getting rid of 230. This forum ceases to exist on that day.
It's not that I think it should just be repealed. The problem is the way Twitter, Facebook, etc. are being allowed to abuse the protections they have under it.

For those who are getting curious, here's what section 230 says:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

To put it another way, when you post a video to YouTube, YouTube is protected from being sued if that video contains illegal content because they are not the ones who made and published said video. That responsibility falls on you. However, when YouTube starts dictating what information people can and cannot put in their videos beyond what is illegal, they have taken an active step toward being the publisher of said videos because they are now the ones deciding what goes in them. Not you. They've crossed the line between just giving people a voice and actively endorsing what people use that voice to say.

This is where social media companies currently get to have their cake and eat it too. They have all the legal protections of a platform and all the power of a publisher.
 

krischan

Moderator
Dec 24, 2019
216
76
28
If somebody writes crap on Twitter, his account will be banned. Why should that be any different for Trump? That wasn't meant as support for the Democrats, but keeping up netiquette. It wasn't disgusting, but the opposite, a hygiene matter. Disgusting was what Trump did on Twitter.

Edit: Twitter, not Titter *facepalm* I couldn't leave that uncorrected, too embarrassing.
 
Last edited: