Reply With Quote
your pathetic contribution here only underscores the point
Twitter FB and Youtube don't owe you anything.
your pathetic contribution here only underscores the point
I wish tbh. I'd love to see the storm.
The social contract matters, except when it doesn't
what social contract? that private companies owe you a platform to be a hateful jackhole?
"Hateful" is in the eye of the beholder
These companies didn't become successful or wealthy because of their "inclusion and diversity". These SJW CEO's (for example Nike) are the equivalent of the Kardashian sister stepping into wealth and attempting to seek social change.
It is.
Read the terms of service. Private companies aren't required to to include people who don't follow the rules.
Don't like it? Don't sign the terms of service. Find another platform that suits you better.
if you do sign, you limited yourself contractually
Why do we belittle companies today that were Nazi collaborators?
you agreed not to be a hateful hole when you signed the terms of service.
that's the contract you and Alex Jones both signed. what did the contract you signed promise you?
Twitter and Youtube are Nazis for 86ing Alex Jones?
Go ahead, connect the dots, I'm all ears.
They are 86ing them for ideological reasons. Nazi collaborators were also supporting an ideology
weak
Alex Jones got booted for defaming and harassing survivors of a mass killing, among other things.
Call it ideological if you like, it put Alex Jones afoul of rules he agreed to when he signed up.
Fascist trying to justify his fascism.
Derp thinks it's fascism to be held accountable for contractual limitations he agreed to.
The Jews were hateful and deserving of relegation, too. Just ask Hitler.
Paypal pulling sponsorship for such behavior makes perfect sense. Banning him doesn't unless he was physically threatening them or calling for harm to be done.
People need to understand that things like "1st Amendment", "facism", etc are directly connected to government.
A private company can generally do as they please and/or up to whatever collective bargaining agreement they agreed to (if one is in place).
Otherwise, a guy like the POTUS could sue CNN claiming he's being censored because they don't show his speeches, for example, or only show partial speeches.
It just doesn't work like that. Censorship only relates to government.
Wow, I spotted FromWayDowntown lurking... o! if you're just passing by!
Twitter isn't Hitler. Unlike German chancellors, it possesses zero political force to eliminate or silence anyone.
so, why is Paypal required to do business with an obnoxious head who defames and bullies people whose kids got shot at school?
I am wondering why they are making Alex Jones out to be some sort of lesson or example. I imagine he is not the only person with a Paypal account that made public statements about that shooting.
You even have Congress running hearings about fake news:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technolo...bias-fake-news
Why wouldn't these companies react to that if it gets them in trouble?
the law is the same way. if it tried to enforce the rules across the board, it would run put of resources and we would run out of patience with it. expecting consistent, comprehensive enforcement of rules isn't realistic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions