Time left until Trump leaves office

A

Anonymous

Guest
Also, in case it’s escaped all of your notice, it’s not the place of a digital oligarchy to decide on digital content

Wake up. Get educated.

When someone incites violence on social media, social media companies have a choice; allow it to happen or don't. They've done the right thing. You know this to be true, so why would you want them to allow users to incite violence on their platforms?
 
T

Trans

Guest
It’s not like saying that all. And such a trite comment doesn’t even deserve the acknowledgment that you bothered to tap your fingertips across a keyboard
He owns it and runs it and he can kick people off if they violated his rules. Same with Twitter and Facebook and Amazon. Declaring that you have a right to say whatever you want on a private company is just silly
 

rifke

bodhisattva
social media companies are merely conduits for communication. they have no business acting as censors. where do they get off thinking they can cut off communication from the president of the united states?!?! it wouldnt be such a problem if there wasnt such a monopoly on social media sites, but the fact of there being a monopoly plus the fact that they think they can censor whoever they want = game over for free speech. it's not cute or funny.
 

rifke

bodhisattva
When someone incites violence on social media, social media companies have a choice; allow it to happen or don't. They've done the right thing. You know this to be true, so why would you want them to allow users to incite violence on their platforms?
but this was a-ok with twitter (up until a few days ago, since they dont want to be seen as hypocrites or anything)
1610448520858.png
 

The.Truth.

about Ruth
social media companies are merely conduits for communication. they have no business acting as censors. where do they get off thinking they can cut off communication from the president of the united states?!?! it wouldnt be such a problem if there wasnt such a monopoly on social media sites, but the fact of there being a monopoly plus the fact that they think they can censor whoever they want = game over for free speech. it's not cute or funny.
The President of the United States has many platforms available to him. He can call a press conference. He can go on Fox News and have a sympathetic reporter interview him.
A company has the right to allow access to their free platform or to deny it. There is no monopoly on social media sites. There are simply sites that have become more popular and their popularity is a result of people making the choice to use them. Everyone that has a problem with our lying, treasonous President being removed from twitter is free to delete their account in protest and follow him on the platform he moved to.

This has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech doesn't mean free access to platforms.
 

rifke

bodhisattva
The President of the United States has many platforms available to him. He can call a press conference. He can go on Fox News and have a sympathetic reporter interview him.
A company has the right to allow access to their free platform or to deny it. There is no monopoly on social media sites. There are simply sites that have become more popular and their popularity is a result of people making the choice to use them. Everyone that has a problem with our lying, treasonous President being removed from twitter is free to delete their account in protest and follow him on the platform he moved to.

This has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech doesn't mean free access to platforms.
i dont think you quite grasp the situation. if you can control what a great deal of people read, you can control what they think. big tech has no business being involved in politics. it's dangerous, and trump would've clamped down on it had he been reelected which is probably the reason they played this game of silencing him: to show their power.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
i dont think you quite grasp the situation. if you can control what a great deal of people read, you can control what they think. big tech has no business being involved in politics. it's dangerous, and trump would've clamped down on it had he been reelected which is probably the reason they played this game of silencing him: to show their power.

Have you read any of the articles linked in this thread or watched the news recently?
 

The.Truth.

about Ruth
i dont think you quite grasp the situation. if you can control what a great deal of people read, you can control what they think. big tech has no business being involved in politics. it's dangerous, and trump would've clamped down on it had he been reelected which is probably the reason they played this game of silencing him: to show their power.
I think you feel the situation is much more complicated than it is or that your take on it is somehow new. It's common knowledge that the largest media companies are owned by a few people. If you can't demand to have space on the pages of the New York Times or demand airtime on network television why can you demand to have space on Twitter?
It's funny to see that some of the people who are most alarmed by this truth, that we live in a capitalist society, are the same people who think socialism will be the death of us all. You're advocating communism when you advocate that the media should be owned equally by all people.

Certainly we live in a world where those who control what people read can have a great influence over what people think. This is a very old idea. As soon as language can be written it begins. It's been used for thousands of years. With the invention of the printing press it began to approach the levels we see today.

You are not owed a platform. And you're certainly not a free speech advocate.
 

A scanty bit of thing

I only have eyes for youuuuuu, Aztec!
1. Twitter is not a private company. Twitter is part of the oligarchy

2. If someone objects to an oligarchy, or to a monopoly for that matter, that does not mean they are advocating communism

3. These comments, and this thread
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1. Twitter is not a private company. Twitter is part of the oligarchy

2. If someone objects to an oligarchy, or to a monopoly for that matter, that does not mean they are advocating communism

3. These comments, and this thread

Nice try. If you're going to post bollocks, then at least back it up instead of typing that ^ crap.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
1. Twitter is not a private company. Twitter is part of the oligarchy

2. If someone objects to an oligarchy, or to a monopoly for that matter, that does not mean they are advocating communism

3. These comments, and this thread

Well, the power of tech is something that should be debated. It's dominated by 6 'Data Kings' - which is not reassuring.
 
T

Trans

Guest
I think you feel the situation is much more complicated than it is or that your take on it is somehow new. It's common knowledge that the largest media companies are owned by a few people. If you can't demand to have space on the pages of the New York Times or demand airtime on network television why can you demand to have space on Twitter?
It's funny to see that some of the people who are most alarmed by this truth, that we live in a capitalist society, are the same people who think socialism will be the death of us all. You're advocating communism when you advocate that the media should be owned equally by all people.

Certainly we live in a world where those who control what people read can have a great influence over what people think. This is a very old idea. As soon as language can be written it begins. It's been used for thousands of years. With the invention of the printing press it began to approach the levels we see today.

You are not owed a platform. And you're certainly not a free speech advocate.

i also think it’s funny that the people who think they should be able to refuse service to gay couples want to force a company to wait on them
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Nice try at what? And back up what, exactly? I think the above is clear, and I’m not your remedial teacher. Buy a dictionary if you feel confused.

We have a smart one here. The two nouns that stand out are "teacher" and "dictionary", however, only one contraction was used; "I'm", which we all know to be the most basic contraction. I wouldn't've used such a basic contraction at that point in that sentence. The use of the adjective "remedial" is interesting. Has the commenter recently been shown a dictionary by their remedial teacher?
 
Top Bottom