Twitter

It sickens me that the left has co-opted the word Resistance and used it for their petty efforts of marches, protests, screaming, and Facebook memes.
It totally demeans the real Resistance, the people who risked, and often lost their lives by helping Jews, and the other 50% of "undesirables" taken by the Nazis.

They need to find a new nickname. Marching with a sign, after you drove over in your fancy car, while attending a $100,000/ year college is not in the same stratosphere. Gag.
 
I see James Woods is back as of today...appears that Twitter staff took it upon themselves to delete the 'offending' tweet when James told them to take a flying leap.
 
Megan Murphy is a Canadian lesbian, progressive, defender of free speech
She got kicked off twitter for a series of tweets arguing that transwomen are not women.
She is suing them over it
Lets hope she wins

"Men are not women," Murphy tweeted before being permanently banned from Twitter in November. "How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?" When Murphy referred to a transgender activist using biologically correct pronouns, her account was permanently locked in November.

The company's rationale for banning Murphy: She had allegedly violated its "hateful-conduct" rules, which "prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category" (full text of policy below). As National Review's Mairead McArdle points out, Twitter added a new wrinkle to its rules in late October, which they then retroactively applied to some of Murphy's past posts: "targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals"; in other words, calling a biological male who identifies as female a "he" or using transgender individuals' birth names rather than their new names.​

Twitter Bans Feminist Writer Who Said ‘Men Are Not Women,’ So Now Twitter’s Getting Sued
 
That is actually an amazing article.I learned many new phrases(misgendering, dead naming) and issues surrounding the whole trans thing
But the point she made about Twitter banning her and why we should care resonates,
"The trend should concern everyone—even those who don’t use Twitter, or who have no exposure to gender-identity controversies. The discussion that I have engaged in on Twitter constitutes political speech, as well as the simple reporting of facts, and relates to the emergence of new legislation in various jurisdictions that will have a profound effect on our society for decades to come. Even if you feel this doesn’t affect you and your family members now, it will in the future."

The article is well worth a read.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Twitter is getting sued. Link.
Click to expand...
Twitter's position in the matter would seem to have been substantially weakened by the fact that their actions are contrary to positions adopted in the various filings required by the SEC as a publicly traded corporation. Had they been a private entity, they could have done whatever they pleased. But being public and making one claim while acting in another has a direct impact upon shareholder value.

They seem concerned when this is brought up as it was precisely the issue I raised during two previous efforts to ban my account. They have never acknowledged it in writing, but I found it curious that each instance saw my account promptly reinstated within literally minutes of their receipt of overnight letters sent to General Counsel.
 
Here is a way to attack social media bias against conservatives
A pathway to defeating Silicon Valley censorship

" .... Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously said, “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” While the statement may have been a gaffe, she illuminated how the left advances its agenda, like gay marriage or, today, legalized marijuana. There was no political moment for gay marriage — even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s wouldn’t touch it — until blue state governments circumvented Washington, voters and the courts to pass legalization, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004. When one state passes controversial legislation, such as gay marriage, it’s as though all 50 have, as an inevitable domino effect of like-minded jurisdictions results in a court challenge.

“Isn’t there one red state out there that can pass a statute making it unlawful for a coherently-defined category of social media to deprive a user of his account on arbitrary or capricious grounds and requires bans or other adverse action to be appealable?” Mr. Coleman asks.

One Florida lawmaker is attempting to do just that. On Friday, Republican state Sen. Joe Gruters introduced the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which proposes a minimum $75,000 penalty on social media giants if they censor or delete a user’s political or religious speech. Large social media websites will be prohibited “from using hate speech as a defense,” as hate speech is not recognized by the First Amendment. The bill does not protect calls for violence or obscene, pornographic, or criminal content.

“It should be done on a state-by-state basis,” Mr. Gruters tells me. “When you have these social media companies that are interwoven in our society, it’s like speaking on a street corner. It’s so part of your everyday life, by taking away someone’s ability to communicate, even if you don’t agree with them, it does more harm than good.” ..."​

Here is the Marsh case mentioned in the piece, if interested (written by one of my guys, Hugo Black)
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
 
Joe Fan said:
Here is a way to attack social media bias against conservatives
A pathway to defeating Silicon Valley censorship

" .... Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously said, “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” While the statement may have been a gaffe, she illuminated how the left advances its agenda, like gay marriage or, today, legalized marijuana. There was no political moment for gay marriage — even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s wouldn’t touch it — until blue state governments circumvented Washington, voters and the courts to pass legalization, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004. When one state passes controversial legislation, such as gay marriage, it’s as though all 50 have, as an inevitable domino effect of like-minded jurisdictions results in a court challenge.

“Isn’t there one red state out there that can pass a statute making it unlawful for a coherently-defined category of social media to deprive a user of his account on arbitrary or capricious grounds and requires bans or other adverse action to be appealable?” Mr. Coleman asks.

One Florida lawmaker is attempting to do just that. On Friday, Republican state Sen. Joe Gruters introduced the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which proposes a minimum $75,000 penalty on social media giants if they censor or delete a user’s political or religious speech. Large social media websites will be prohibited “from using hate speech as a defense,” as hate speech is not recognized by the First Amendment. The bill does not protect calls for violence or obscene, pornographic, or criminal content.

“It should be done on a state-by-state basis,” Mr. Gruters tells me. “When you have these social media companies that are interwoven in our society, it’s like speaking on a street corner. It’s so part of your everyday life, by taking away someone’s ability to communicate, even if you don’t agree with them, it does more harm than good.” ..."​

Here is the Marsh case mentioned in the piece, if interested (written by one of my guys, Hugo Black)
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
Click to expand...

It would take a pretty activist decision by the Court to essentially deem social media companies to be state actors. I wouldn't bet on that happening, and of course, unintended consequences of such a ruling would be enormous.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It would take a pretty activist decision by the Court to essentially deem social media companies to be state actors. I wouldn't bet on that happening, and of course, unintended consequences of such a ruling would be enormous.
Click to expand...

Would help if Congress and the Executive Branch were concerned enough to make it an issue

Anyway, Hugo FTW
" ... Many people in the United States live in company-owned towns. [fn5] These people, just as residents of municipalities, are free citizens of their State and country. Just as all other citizens, they must make decisions which affect the welfare of community and nation. To act as good citizens, they must be informed. In order to enable them to be properly informed, their information must be uncensored. There is no more reason for depriving these people of the liberties guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments than there is for curtailing these freedoms with respect to any other citizen. [fn]

When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. [fn7] As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment "lies at the foundation of free government by free men," and we must in all cases "weigh the circumstances and . . . appraise the . . . reasons . . . in support of the regulation . . . of the rights." Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 161. In our view, the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place were held by others than the public is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a state statute. Insofar as the State has attempted to impose criminal punishment on appellant for undertaking to distribute religious literature in a company town, its action cannot stand....."​
 
State Sen. Bryan Hughes has filed a bill creating a civil cause of action against social media companies that censor religious and political speech. It awards up to $75K in damages (probably to keep cases from getting removed to federal court) plus attorneys fees. Ouch.
 
D3QnqQVXkAMGb4A.jpg
 
"Hate speech" has been redefined yet again to mean any joke that makes a liberal angry. And now not even the Never Trumpers are safe on Twitter anymore. Maybe these good folks will suddenly care about censorship now?



D75URT_W4AET5lx.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
"Hate speech" has been redefined yet again to mean any joke that makes a liberal angry. And now not even the Never Trumpers are safe on Twitter anymore. Maybe these good folks will suddenly care about censorship now?



D75URT_W4AET5lx.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow. That doesn't even come close to violating the rules. Frankly, I don't even see the argument. If stuff like this enough reason to ban or restrict someone, it's time for the Right to leave the platform altogether and come up with something that's actually free and open. It's getting ridiculous.
 
Well, it does harass based on ethnicity, even though it is mocking her false claim at ethnicity.

But I agree. It is time for conservative, or should I say free speech, versions, of the different social media platforms.
 
Youtube is worse because people actually make money of content they put there. You could make a living utilizing Youtube's service. But they demonetize, which means they can still make money off your content but you can't.
 
Monahorns said:
Youtube is worse because people actually make money of content they put there. You could make a living utilizing Youtube's service. But they demonetize, which means they can still make money off your content but you can't.
Click to expand...

The social media networks' bias and double standards are getting more and more flagrant and obvious. I don't think they necessarily planned it that way. I think their leadership leans heavily toward the left, and I think they fear the SJW mobs, because the only people they personally deal with are SJWs and those who sympathize with them. I'm sure there are some conservatives in their circles, by they are wildly outnumbered and are likely quiet about it. Guys like Zuckerberg and Dorsey truly are in a bubble.

What needs to happen is that some real free speech advocates (preferably from a mix of political backgrounds) need to launch a major alternative to the current networks. It shouldn't necessarily be a free for all, but it shouldn't censor or discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, which the current networks clearly do.
 
Deez, all an alternative platform would need to do is be upfront about the rules, whatever they may be, and stick to them strictly when allowing or disallowing content.
 
Driver 8 said:
This introduces the problematic gray area. What is ok and what's not?
Click to expand...

It's problematic, but you err on the side of openness. Basically, if it wouldn't be criminal or actionable defamation, you allow it. Somebody being offended or insulted even for a terrible reason shouldn't be enough - not even close.
 
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