Twitter

Your household analogy is so far off base that it isn't even laughable. To begin with, a house is not something being set up to offer services to the public and has no obligations to outside stakeholders. I would go on but it is clear you don't grasp simple concepts.
Click to expand...

mb227, they don't want to grasp anything you or I have to say. They want to destroy us. Once you see people online (all over social media and here) calling for the killing of a private company strictly over speech. They are telling you exactly what they want and what they are willing to do to get it.

First it is the app, then it is the website, then it is the business loans, then it is residential loans, then it is hospitals, then it is grocery stores. The end game is to starve those who refuse to curtail their speech and/or submit.
 
How long before they get the boot?
Click to expand...

From what I read Gab has all their own infrastructure. It will be much harder to get rid of them.

It will be strange but what will end up happening if this continues is that free speech platforms will be hosted from other countries. There are already browsers which are free speech or open platform.
 
Twitter banished a large percentage of their American customer base through the weekend purge. This is why their stock tanked after the regular market hours Friday and continuing into this morning. No violations of the Terms of Service...but the accounts nonetheless went *poof*
Click to expand...

Twitter is also erasing followers from conservatives. Thousands at a time.
 
You are watching Cancel Culture played out in a McCarthyistic manner...only you are too clouded by your TDS to recognize it.
Click to expand...

It isn't TDS though. It is Leftism. Leftists always end up at tyranny and totalitarianism as their get more and more power. The Ds today are very similar to the "good Germans" of the 30s.
 
PecosBill said:
Alex Jones and InfoWars is probably a good example of what happens when the social media platforms dont have any guidelines for everyone to operate within.
Click to expand...

"To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? To whom would you delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read?"
— Christopher Hitchens​

Why not just let the people decide for themselves what they think of Alex Jones?
You really think the world is better if the arbiter of what the people should hear and not hear is you?
 
Joe Fan said:
"To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? To whom would you delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read?"
— Christopher Hitchens​

Why not just let the people decide for themselves what they think of Alex Jones?
You really think the world is better if the arbiter of what the people should hear and not hear is you?
Click to expand...

That is exactly why the courts ruled against Alex Jones in Travis County and his "freedom speech" that was causing damage. The courts set the damages and he is off most social media as a result.

Jones can find a new platform where his preferred type of freedom speech is welcome.

Last week it was a bullhorn in DC.
 
Joe Fan said:
"To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? To whom would you delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read?"
— Christopher Hitchens​

Why not just let the people decide for themselves what they think of Alex Jones?
You really think the world is better if the arbiter of what the people should hear and not hear is you?
Click to expand...
There is an abnormal amount of censoring going on in the world. Give an unqualified person a little power and they tend to misuse it.
I am vehemently against the idea that non-government created monopolies exist, but the concurrent actions of Amazon, Apple and Google, and other vendors, against Parler certainly appears to be tortious interference. Curious to see how the lawsuit goes.
 
iatrogenic said:
There is an abnormal amount of censoring going on in the world. Give an unqualified person a little power and they tend to misuse it.
I am vehemently against the idea that non-government created monopolies exist, but the concurrent actions of Amazon, Apple and Google, and other vendors, against Parler certainly appears to be tortious interference. Curious to see how the lawsuit goes.
Click to expand...

Big Tech owns the courts too
They own everything, can do whatever they want
They are a lot like China
 
upload_2021-1-11_15-0-12.jpeg
 
I posted this a while back, but if you are a conservative on twitter or FB, you are perpetuating the problem. Closing your accounts and divesting their stock is the answer.
 
theiioftx said:
I posted this a while back, but if you are a conservative on twitter or FB, you are perpetuating the problem. Closing your accounts and divesting their stock is the answer.
Click to expand...
The stock is part of the issue...but don't just divest. Short the hell out of it and make some money in the process. Seriously.

Pick and choose the moments though, and be content to make a few bucks at a time. I expect TWTR to be propped by the institutions for a while after the massive drop early this AM but I expect they will ALSO be trying to unwind positions. Elimination of half of your user base simply because of who they voted for tends not to be a wise proposition for a business that makes its money on use of a website...

Institutions carry 70% of the TWTR stock in play. They won't carry it forever.
 
theiioftx said:
upload_2021-1-11_15-0-12.jpeg
Click to expand...

Both have Iran and twatter similar views on the United States, so it's understandable.

Look, those 6000 square foot mansions in SF aren't given to tech workers, they have to be paid for. So the grand bargain they have made is to be the IT service to everyone else in the world, democracies, and dictators alike, to fund their lifestyle, and immunity to the economic pressure of who they really hate - American conservatives.
 
mb227 said:
Again, you miss that speech goes BEYOND the First goddamned Amendment. Twitter is a publicly traded company. They have obligations to be followed before unilaterally engaging in conduct the courts would call Prior Restraint.

Your household analogy is so far off base that it isn't even laughable. To begin with, a house is not something being set up to offer services to the public and has no obligations to outside stakeholders. I would go on but it is clear you don't grasp simple concepts.

They have harmed shareholder valuation through their actions AND simultaneously drawn the scorn of other first-world nations, including some not exactly fans of DJT.

The ONLY good thing out of all of this was people like me and others who had the wisdom to short TWTR on Friday made a nice chunk of change before 8AM today.

The irony is that the left has tacitly admitted that 'Rules for Thee but not For Me' is an acceptable manner of doing business AND that they approve of monopolistic actions. Middle America woke up this morning and is realizing WHY it is not good to have so much power in the hands of a few companies and maybe even recall WHY we broke the Bell System up all those years ago...
Click to expand...

I appreciate the response, notwithstanding the intelligence insult. You're conflating many issues here. Free Speech, Prior Restraint, Monopoly each are distinct concepts that you've rolled into a ball and gloated that you were able to make some coin. Good for you on the financial side. More money to gamble in Vegas now, huh?

Legally, this is not a first amendment issue because the government is not involved. I'm surprised lawyers are trying to apply first amendment principles onto a free market situation. If you don't like the household analogy try Home Depot. Are you going to say that Home Depot doesn't have the right to refuse service to any customer? If so, it's amazing to me that just a few years ago conservatives argued that any business should be able to refuse service to any customer for any reason whether they be LGTBQ, Muslim or other. Political expediency is equally as amazing for all sides of the political spectrum.

Prior Restraint? You don't think they have ToS that allows them to boot anyone at any time? Have you forgotten that in most cases each of these companies have a multiple "strike" process and these accounts have reached the end of their rope? NONE of this is a surprise to investors other than Donald Trump's actions. Media has been discussing the potential of a permanent Trump ban at the end of his tenure because he violated their terms of service, repeatedly. Twitter recently stated that if Trump violated their ToS after his tenure he'd fall under the same restrictions as anyone else. As an aside, you are overstating Twitter's stock fall. It's dropped ~10% since 1/6. Certainly that was due to Trump's suspension.

I'm curious what accountability for irresponsible use of free speech looks like. Let's take Twitter out of the question. Does @Dionysus have the right to ban a user that doesn't follow his ToS?
 
Last edited:
nashhorn said:
I might be wrong but I think the central issue is an equal application of their stated ToS standard.
Click to expand...

I haven't read their ToS but would wager they have some catchall that allows them to cancel any account at any time for any reason they choose and they don't have to give a reason why. Just a guess that most ToS include a "get out of jail free" clause.
 
Garmel said:
You don't even realize the point I was making, do you? You're the one that sounds like a fascist, not me. We don't get rid of things that we don't like in this country. There's been a shitload more violence from the left than the right this year so I guess we should get rid of the left leaning Facebook since its responsible for the violence. That's what you sound like, bud.
Click to expand...
Colin kaepernick would disagree with you.
 
Musk on the Left ganging up to shut down Parler

A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech​

 
nashhorn said:
I might be wrong but I think the central issue is an equal application of their stated ToS standard.
Click to expand...
There is more than just the ToS box at issue...there are the claims they advance to prospective and current shareholders. A publicly traded company that makes claims in the various filings has obligations that a privately held entity might have been able to evade.

There was a point in time where Twitter took the obligations seriously. On three occasions, I had the males in makeup try to get me booted and my account was indefinitely locked. On three occasions, I over-nighted the letter to their General Counsel pointing out the lack of a stated violation per their own documents and also pointing out that a claim could be advanced to the SEC if they so chose. In EACH instance, the account was active within less than two hours of the FedEx envelope having been received.

They have no real appeal process that functions. There is also no consistency to the 'report' function. I had someone who tried to put a lot of public information about me through a series of tweets. It was a greater number than fit in one report...despite it being clear doxing using non-public information, only one of the two reports was deemed to be a violation. The user was not banned or even suspended for the one that was sustained.

A company cannot claim to have processes and then not follow those processes or fail to apply them equally. When they fail so miserably and one-sided, it harms shareholder valuation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top