Reply With Quote
Standards change.
New York Post has a website and a newspaper. It’s not twitters legal duty to host all their content.
Standards change.
derp getting worked up over Twitter while he cheers Trump’s naked attempts at actually suppressing democracy.
Clearly you're still confused about it, board re .
What's insane is the number of people in this country that do that also
So by new standards. Are the hillary emails hacks or leaks?
They don't really. But they can be made aware of the difference.
If the president orders a murder of a foreign official, and that murder is against the law, then the president classifies everything about that murder, and someone decides to leak that information, should that leaker be prosecuted for revealing classified information?
I don't care.
What makes breaking tax law better than a leak or a hack?In the second place, what makes a leak better than a hack? Bot are (typically) illegal.
murder the leaker
You should. This is important stuff. Wake up
Yeah I mean criminals should be able to keep their crimes secret
I actually change my mind, I'm no longer OK with twitter blocking the URL. It should have tagged the URL with a warning message about possible disinformation, but blocking it completely was overboard imo.
It's still a private company so there's really no remedy here, but we're beginning to have a 21st century version of the problem we had 100 years ago in terms of monopolies, it's just tech monopolies now as opposed to oil/railroad monopolies. The issues we ran into during the industrial revolution are repeating themselves now during the digital revolution, we're just seeing them in different forms.
"Legal" .. lol
Actually in hindsight Hillary's emails weren't important at all. The only thing "important" about them was they were being investigated.
Similarly, the Hunter Biden stuff isn't important either.
I support social media platforms setting and revising standards for the dissemination of certain content. I especially support them overcorrecting on their standards in order to prevent the abortion they created in 2016.
yes. legal. he's talking about censorship.
or they get doubled
still censorship legal or not.
when he's calling it a suppression of the freedom of press its absolutely a legal question.
i have no issue with a website having TOS and enforcing them. i dont think it needs to be a "free marketplace" where they're also obligated to keep up isis recruitment videos, etc
Conservatives are mad because they were hoping to use Twitter and other platforms to amplify a story that they hoped would sway the election in their favor. Period. They're not mad about standards or precedents. Twitter has no obligation to participate in their campaign.
As far as precedent, I doubt this changes much of anything moving forward. At worst, it's a bad call by a company trying to do the right thing.
Conservatives do not want honest, level playing fields.
They don't want neutral media.
They want ONLY media that pushes their views.
They want ONLY to get their way using any lie, any dishonest cheat they can. Power for power's sake, by any means necessary.
Some of them know this consciously, and act on it, and many don't know that is what they are advocating for.
Sure hillary emails were important. They were a big issue that affected 2016 elections.
Censorship is generally the government doing that.
This is not the government.
This is a private company making a decision in a free market-ish system.
Suck it, or call for active regulation of a free-maket-ish system. I would be all about breaking up some of these companies using anti-monopoly statutes. You and I might even agree on that.
What about Jared and Ivanka's private email server? is that important? Why or why not?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions