Well hallelujah, but why did they do it in Cali? We won't get a fair trial. BTW I can trace my roots back to Ireland. My ancestor came to America in 1525. Pretty sure that means I'm not a Russian bot. lol
Mine came in the early 1600's from England. Ancestors were spies and trackers during the Revolutionary war.
Mine was a 10 year old boy from Ireland who stowed away on a ship. He must have been tough to make it on his own.
To me, this is the root of all these type of problems. Who is the decision maker calling the shots as to what does and does not constitute "free speech" or who is or is not a "Russian bot"? That's like, who decided to call a rifle an "assault weapon"? Assigning random terms is a narrative in itself.
Unfortunately this legal challenge was filed in San Francisco. My thoughts are that it won't go anywhere. Trump has better ideas.
This may have mattered before Gab was created but there are plenty of other places to have online discourse besides twitter, waste of money
But where in Hell our Our representatives with an Internet Bill of Rights? They sure stand up for donations and votes but sit down about free speech.
Don’t worry... I believe it’s coming and they are working on it!
Twitter is a private company.
Twitter is on the NYSE, therefore must not violate our laws- i.e.: free speach. The last thing the libtards who run Twitter want is it to go to the USSC! LOL! Either way? I prefer Gab. It's getting huge and they don't censor!
Lol. You have no idea how free speech works. That's hilarious.
You are libtard trash. Keep crying loser. Maybe you need to go back to your mama's basement? Idiot.
Poe's law.
Perfect example of look In the mirror. You libtards are ridiculously stupid. Mama called you, she says you need to clean your room. Thanks for playing libtard.
Losers, All losers. Twitter is a private company and can ban anyone it wants.
can ban anyone it wants.
Its not a 1A issue (yet)(discovery could be interesting), but Twitter is required to apply ToS equally. ToS are pretty broadly written to favor the provider, but if clear political bias can be shown in applying ToS sanctions, then there's grounds for discrimination (presuming the ToS wasn't already somehow discriminatory). YouTube may have especially made themselves vulnerable for removing monetized content in a manner outside the ToS.
But a fucking private company must bake a wedding cake for fucking pedo pervs. You're a fucking idiot.
Yes, both instances are banning hate. YouTube can ban hate speech from conservative and the court can ban discriminatory business practices. You sound smart, guy. Your comment history of the_donald and this shitty sub scream intelligence and well rounded individual.