BREAKING NEWS: TWITTER SUSPENDS TRUMP'S ACCOUNT PERMANENTLY

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
2,329
Points
113
3. Forcing Apple or Google to carry a product they did nor want would be a taking.
4. Everybody needs to review fascism and communism. ‘This is neither,but the possible remedies will be one or the other.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
2,329
Points
113
A bar has an open mic night every Wednesday. For years it is a popular event. It costs the performer nothing, and the best ones migrate into paid gigs on busier nights.
One day, a guy named Ronnie comes in. He does his bit, but he’s awful. He can’t sing, he has body odor, and is hard to look at. The crowd hangs on, but the mood has been spoiled.
He shows up the next 13 weeks. Everybody knows he’s going to be there on Wednesday, so they go somewhere else. He’s just awful.
But, the rules say that even it costs you business by ruining your brand, Ronnie has to be able to perform.
Which party is more likely to,use government force here to let Ronnie play?
 

scools12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
1,158
Points
113
Hey, so um, this is a bit awkward, but Twitter isn't actually real life.
Might want to tell Lyin’ Howie that. He swears by the reality of Twitter.

Astroman & SuzyBeeKeeper are his most trusted sources.
 
Last edited:

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,523
Reaction score
1,219
Points
113
If Twitter wants to ban the president, I have no complaint. Every tech company banding together to prevent people from accessing Parler? I have a problem. And I wouldn’t call that free market action. These companies are deeply embedded with the federal government and one political party. 5 minutes ago you all laughed and said “have fun on Parler! No one cares!” And now you pivot to this? Disgusting.
Sounds like a business opportunity. And, indeed, it is. Your Queen has already alluded to it. You should beat him to it. And also, you should stop telling us you are a principled free market economist.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,524
Reaction score
3,892
Points
113
Sounds like a business opportunity. And, indeed, it is. Your Queen has already alluded to it. You should beat him to it. And also, you should stop telling us you are a principled free market economist.
Nothing more than virtue signaling. Deuce has betrayed his so called "principles" many many times over. Almost always in the name of arguing for the right wing stance of the day.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,606
Reaction score
1,858
Points
113
It’s actually the definition of fascism. Look at all the ignorant glee in this thread.
I'm surprised an economic and political savant such as yourself hasn't already invented the best new tech platform so you and your ilk could access non-democratic info 24/7; my goodness, people in that universe would worship an praise you, unlike the real one.
 

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,831
Reaction score
384
Points
83
All the Trumpsters having a fit for Trump's Twitter getting banned while simultaneously calling for Section 230 to be repealed is hilariously ironic, as that would result in this happening far more frequently.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,400
Reaction score
3,534
Points
113
It's disingenuous to essentially declare a civil war and then cry like babies when the people you declare war against counter your attacks and cut off communications from your leaders. Why is Twitter or anyone obligated to facilitate communications for a hostile insurgency? It's immaterial whether the insurgent leader is still technically in power. A society has the right to take steps to protect itself. Twitter and others might be a little slow on the uptake, but they've finally figured out that the game has changed now.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,348
Reaction score
2,501
Points
113
It's disingenuous to essentially declare a civil war and then cry like babies when the people you declare war against counter your attacks and cut off communications from your leaders. Why is Twitter or anyone obligated to facilitate communications for a hostile insurgency? It's immaterial whether the insurgent leader is still technically in power. A society has the right to take steps to protect itself. Twitter and others might be a little slow on the uptake, but they've finally figured out that the game has changed now.
Nobody essentially declared civil war, so you don’t get to respond like they did.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,400
Reaction score
3,534
Points
113
Nobody essentially declared civil war, so you don’t get to respond like they did.
We're at war. I think I'm probably at war with you. Have people forgotten about the plot to kidnap and kill the Michigan governor? I'm not pretending this is nothing. People need to wake up.

I and my side will win this time, just like last time.
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
4,822
Reaction score
2,329
Points
113
Nobody essentially declared civil war, so you don’t get to respond like they did.
Huh?
Because you have twitter rights?
The hilarious thing is the right wingers on the Supreme Court will side with businesses 99/100 times on this issue and you know it.

A cake decorator can refuse a gay cake but twitter can't ban Trump for violating term's of sevice. Ummm ok.....
 

Minnesota

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
1,534
Reaction score
995
Points
113
As a general rule, I don’t like the idea of Silicon Valley vampires dictating public discourse in this manner. That said, anti-imperialist and anti-war content has been getting de-ranked for years, and pro-Palestinian accounts have been purged en masse. The neocons have been pretty quiet about that. I don’t really care if Tucker Carlson is losing Twitter followers.
 
Top Bottom