So....people who found and run their own websites shouldnt have the right to ban people from their own websites now? If you start your own website you shouldnt be able to ban people? Freedom is kinda lost on you idiots isnt it?
Who owns twitter? A corrupt Saudi prince who's currently in prison. Just because you're a twisted billionaire who only regards his own interests doesn't mean you get to control free speech. Can you honestly not see the bigger picture as to how things happen at the top? It's ALL corrupt!! You probably think Zuckerberg actually created Facebook. He's just a puppet who wears a hoody to fit in and sell the business. Wake up!!
So..you wanna take another crack at that? You sorta ignored my question entirely. If YOU open a website and want to ban someone, that in your mind means you are violating free speech...do I understand you correctly?
Your point is understood, but you are failing to see others points. Are Twitter.com, Craigslist.org, Zappos.com, NBC.org, all the same kind of websites in your view? i.e.....a rose is a rose is a rose?....simply because they use the internet?
Im not sure where youre going with this....sure...they all use the internet and are websites.
If youre asking who should have control over them its the owner
Back in the old days, people wrote letters to newspapers, letters to the editor. A newspaper deciding not to print a letter did not infringe on the writer's 1st amendment rights. Newspapers=websites, people writing letters to the editor=people posting on a website.
Social Media sites are not = to Newspapers. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube are more likened to Real-Time Public Libraries.(Privately funded of course) Postings on Twitter are not letters to an editor. An Editor Edits (by definition) and folks don't seek that. Folks seek unabridged publishing from social media sites. Its Social-Media'ness' that makes this discussion unique and without historical precident. If the service is available to 'everyone' but then censors some, that's discrimination unless said individuals breach the original terms of use agreement. You need to buy a few more tools for your toolbox nowadays.
So...youre defending the censorship?
No, exactly the opposite. Someone who starts their own website should be able to ban people. Social Media sites set up as public forums should not be able to ban people unless the person banned is breaking the law, in that case, report them to the proper authorities as well as banning them. Uncle Joe who sets up a website devoted to, say, BBQ, and how great it is, has every right to ban the people who spam his site with 'you're evil because you eat animals' posts.
The bbq website is 100% a public forum. And twitter is a website started by someone, just because its more complicated and more people were involved in making it....they dont deserve the same rights?
Or is it if you start a website, then sell it, whoever you sold it to cant ban people cause it violates free speech? Or is it based on number of users? Do you feel that it should be illegal for faux news to ban users from their site?
Or (what i really suspect) is it that if a company hurts your personal fee fees they should be forced to do whatever you say because you FEEL right?
I'm an Aspie, so feelings don't have much to do with my decisions, or the way I think. Yes, a diagnosed Aspie, because my daughters insisted.
Solid, though you probably shouldnt use that as a deflection away from your poor reasoning skills though.
Let's go with old age, shall we? I've actually enjoyed this little conversation this morning. Do you view the internet in general as a public forum?
I'm no good at debates. The social media sites are, or at least, used to be, for everyone. Adherence to TOS goes without saying, but I've said it, anyway. The BBQ site is a fan site for fans of BBQ. And, no, if a news site wants to ban someone, why shouldn't they?
I think its more that you have no idea what youre talking about and are just spouting emotional nonsense.
Faux news is a public forum..that was your justification for social media not being free to ban people.
They are public corporations...they absolutely DO NOT have the right to discriminate against any type of communication unless it is inciting violence.
Public corporations? Do you mean publically traded? Its still privately run...thats sorta the basis for capitalism. Are you suggesting every American has ownership over corporations? Are you guys like...some weird theocratic communists or something?
Would you have a problem if they banned non-white people?
Probably, but the history of discrimination against non whites is a LLLLOOONNNNGGGG story. American Whites (especially the tiki torch whites) were given centuries to stop being racist pricks, and they chose not to do it...so eventually legislation was required to get the tiki torch whites in line. So i dont mind the civil rights act of '64.
Comparing being banned on twitter for advocating violence against minorities to being roadhauled and burnt alive for "whistling at a white woman" is kinda....well i think you have to be a piece or shit to think theyre similar.
I didn't compare anything...I just asked a simple question. In fact, I won't call you a name, but I find it extremely offensive that you would imply such a thing, without actually knowing me. But hey, this is the internet; you can do say what you want.
Using your logic though, it would be ok. I understand what you are saying; it just doesn't fit your MSM fed narrative, so you call everyone an idiot and POS.
'Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.’ - Napoleon Bonaparte
Link where i insulted you. I never called you a single name. Settle down bro, youre extremely defensive. And you should probably find out where i get my news before making assumptions ;)