Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to understand that while the motive for banning by FB and YouTube maybe business or TOS motivated, there exists others that are not.... The decision should be solely with Twitter. People can call for whatever they want... Doesnt mean Twitter or any other private entity has to follow.
There are those on the right that yell white power but any logical person should understand that it doesn't mean everyone on the right has racists views.
Just like Youtube and the like should have the right to make business decisions like banning AJ, Twitter should have the right to choose to not too.
Btw... Trump and his supporters are a major component of twitters success. It would be a bad decision to alienate them.
This is why Trump is still allowed to post on Twitter. He has said things that have gotten other people banned.
I don't care that Twitter leaves him on there because that's Twitter's business. Same reason why I don't care that other sites banned Alex Jones. It's their business.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
This is why Trump is still allowed to post on Twitter. He has said things that have gotten other people banned.
I don't care that Twitter leaves him on there because that's Twitter's business. Same reason why I don't care that other sites banned Alex Jones. It's their business.
If it's best for Twitter and they decide to keep AJ and company, then I would also support that decision.... After all they are private too and have the right.
Unlike some posters in this thread, I don't pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't based on personal biases.
The links you posted were in reference to two companies dropping their domain registration. To control xyz.com you need to register xyz.com, it's a critical part of the internet and the most critical if you expect someone to be able to type xyz.com into their browser and get to your site. It would be similar to phone book listing.
You need to go back and read the link I posted form the Cloudflare CEO. They were performing services for that site as well and dropped them because they were insinuating Cloudflare supported them. As noted in his blog post the power he has is dangerous for one person to have.
The problem is this, the case of the Daily Stormer was unique since in a way it incited a riot (promoting Charlottesville) and cheered the killing that resulted from said riot.
This is absolutely about shutting down anyone who exposes what is really going on. Period.
Jones is not a chosen one for Operation Mockingbird and he is blowing their entire scam. Trumps family watched INFOwars, before he was elected. I don't know about now, but Eric and Jr. do reply and like INFOwars tweets.
Jones is not part of Operation Mockingbird and is not keeping to the CIA script. Jones has exposed the lies, while they try and make him out to be some lunatic. https://www.scribd.com/document/4163...ew-and-History
Quote:
Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA.
The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
The thing that has be very puzzled: The Democrats and Left-leaning folks on this forum are very concerned that Trump is going to do something like shutdown CNN or the New York Times, etc. Some were very concerned when a little old granny and a room full of Trump supporters heckled Jim Acosta. They think that Trump's blatant disrespect for CNN and MSNBC and the whole lot of them constitutes a threat to the freedom of the press and speech and a threat to the survival of out nation. I can only guess that you're worried that mean words will translate into Trump taking some kind of action to silence all news media that reports negatively on him, but that hasn't actually happened yet.
The Left just did everything so afraid of and now you think it's a fantastic idea. Somebody explain that to me. Seems like it's, "Free speech and freedom of the press for me but not for thee." What am I missing here?
No. People are fighting back with their 1st Amendment. No need for MORE government.
Federal Communications regulations on the books already, do the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
How do you feel about the federal communications regulating the likes of YouTube?
What did I just say, that you replied too?
The regulations are already there in CDA 230. Once they started editing content of a publisher. They lose protections for defamation posted on their site. They can now be sued for what is posted by other people if they don't remove it.
Just like here, if someone defames another and they don't remove it.
The Left just did everything so afraid of and now you think it's a fantastic idea. Somebody explain that to me. Seems like it's, "Free speech and freedom of the press for me but not for thee." What am I missing here?
If you haven't picked up on the difference between private companies not hosting content vs. government officials using the force of law to ban certain viewpoints in 1100 posts or so, then it's certainly beyond my powers to formulate an explanation you'd understand.
If you haven't picked up on the difference between private companies not hosting content vs. government officials using the force of law to ban certain viewpoints in 1100 posts or so, then it's certainly beyond my powers to formulate an explanation you'd understand.
OPC's are federally regulated, even if privately owned by shareholders.
There are rules and there is no having it both ways.
Congress can damn well make laws to expand the 1st amendment.
They just cannot make laws that reduce it(abridged)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
