#71
|
||||
|
Quote:
You think the people who pray to invisible sky men and RD are the ones who have the firmest grip on reality? Someone told you that twitter is biased, someone told you how to feel, here you are. How can that be true when the GOP has a twitter page..? The RNC has a twitter page. Right wing think tanks have twitter pages. Most GOP congressmen have a twitter page. So no, I dont buy your choices. Stop posting lies about people to try to destroy their dads political ambitions and maybe you wont get banned. I know this is hard to swallow but this is why you dont meet many right winger scientists/programmers/technical field workers. The people who cant follow directions. I'll say it again, its a reading comprehension problem, not a left or right problem. Someone's opinion, right or wrong, isnt the news and I'm glad they dont let people present it as factual news. Weird how the USA is only like 15% of their user base but you're saying it like we're the only people who post on it. Over a billion people use twitter. So how can it be SOOO left wing when we(usa) only account for like 15% of the platform..? | |||
|
#72
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#73
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#74
|
||||
|
Quote:
And my critique is that their policy is total bullshit, and violates the strictures sec 230 is supposed to impose upon these companies, IN THE US. I don't care how china interacts with twitter, I care about the relationship between election integrity and the dispensation of information in the United States with regard to twitter, that's how this whole argument got started. | |||
|
#75
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you censor, edit, editorialize, etc. you aren't protected. There is no legal penalty for choosing the second option. It just means you are open to all kinds of lawsuits since you are now responsible for everything posted on your website. It's a good rule when applied as it was intended. Big tech was given the benefit of the doubt, but now that we see they aren't acting in good faith. They are acting like CNN, therefore can be sued for what's on their website, just like CNN. Social media companies don't have 100% control of their platform, so they won't survive under the section option. Would be a big win for free speech. Don't like it? Then stay protected under Section 230 by not being a "publisher" and just being a "platform." Pretty simple. Guess lib brain can comprehend for some.
__________________
| |||
|
#76
|
||||
|
Quote:
And your first amendment rights aren't protected while you're committing treason. Stop it. | |||
|
#77
|
|||
|
For people that think twitter is so amazing, this statistic is from 2021:
"206 million users access Twitter daily. 75% of them are not based in the US" Doing a little math here, 206 - (0.75 * 206) = 51.5 million 51.5 / 320 = 16% 16% of the US population uses twitter daily Twitter is not representative of anything. It's views are not representative of anything. I have stayed off Twatter and my life is better for it | ||
Last edited by unsunghero; 12-03-2021 at 07:28 PM..
|
|
#78
|
|||
|
"If Twitter is so insignificant being 16% of the population, why do Conservatives have a problem with it?"
Part of what makes Twitter seem more significant than it really is, is the left corporate media (and to a lesser extent the right corporate media, because they do it too) referencing what people on it are saying as if it matters. And not even what ALL of twitter is saying, but usually what just a handful of people on twitter are saying. When you don't want to report on actual news because it doesn't fit your narrative, just report on what people on Twitter are saying And sometimes their viewers are just dumb enough to believe that matters | ||
|
#79
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
|