- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/12/22 at 2:41 pm to Proximo
Posted on 12/12/22 at 2:44 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
A) His First Amendment rights are not harmed by a private company deciding he violated their terms of service and suspending his account.
B) It says a lot about you that you'd think these are in any way similar.
Gov. Abrams, I'm sorry that you were denied your rightful place as governor of Georgia because of Jim Crow laws that saw voter turnout explode this year. Better luck in 2026.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 2:46 pm to Proximo
quote:
You’re lying again in the face of direct evidence
That's what it does.
Over and over and over again....
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:01 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
When they became a threat to democracy,” they say. So creepy and weird that that parrot that talking point. That absurdly exaggerated talking point.
quote:
It’s crazy to me how any of them saw incitement in his tweets. But they seem to sincerely believe it. Thankfully others were brave enough to disagree out loud. Just in the name of truth and logic.
quote:
baybeefeetz
What have a missed? This can’t be you.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:03 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
He didn't violate their TOS
He did. But even if he hadn't, they can kick anyone off whenever they feel like it (including when they stage a failed coup). Private companies are allowed to do that sort of thing.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:05 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
BitchATL
What’s up bitch? Still a true believer in the boosters?
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:13 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
A) His First Amendment rights are not harmed by a private company deciding he violated their terms of service and suspending his account.
Except, by their own admission, they couldn't identify a violation of TOS. Not even a "coded" one. He was banned because they swallowed up dem rhetoric designed to paint opposition as a "Hitleresque threat to democracy". If they were really afraid of political rhetoric leading to rights violations, they wouldn't have literally used political rhetoric to infringe on rights. There were world leaders calling for genocide on that platform who were not permanently banned.
The false right wing violence narrative is is just another example of the same illusory truth effect used to justify this banning.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:15 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Not really. But it's a good thing that didn't happen, regardless.
Oh really?
LINK
quote:
“As the election approached, senior executives — perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed — increasingly struggled with rules, and began to speak of ‘vios’ [violations] as pretexts to do what they’d likely have done anyway.”
quote:
The released internal communications from Slack accounts show that not only was Yoel Roth meeting with the FBI, but he knew he was doing something wrong. He went to great pains to hide these activities on his company calendar, coming up with other descriptions of meetings to avoid documenting his visits by agents from the Bureau where they discussed Trump. Roth even made mocking jokes about it.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:17 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
He did.
No, he did not. They even came up with the 3 strikes rule and had to go back and remove his 2nd strike as it didn't violate their terms of service. They then had to create a way to unilaterally ban trump.
This isn't hidden knowledge anymore. Twitter files have published the actual tweets from the twitter decision makers. They actually released this information about 3 hours ago.
This post was edited on 12/12/22 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:18 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Now this one is interesting.
What I find interesting is that it was known the possibility of Elon buying the company since April/May? Had months to clean their litterbox box and just left it exposed and smelly for the new management to go in and scoop some poop. It sincerely baffles me!
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:20 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
He did. But even if he hadn't, they can kick anyone off whenever they feel like it (including when they stage a failed coup). Private companies are allowed to do that sort of thing.
Sure they are. They are perhaps even "allowed" to collude with the feds and the media to cover up news stories that hurt the regime. They are allowed to suppress and promote news in an effort to affect elections. They are even allowed to lie about it all.
Just remember that they are also exposed to the blowback of operating a platform under false pretenses. They end up with no public trust, under new ownership, and we all get to bathe in the tears of people like you who wont hold Musk to the same private enterprise "standards" you held Dorsey to.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:22 pm to BugAC
quote:
Oh really?
Oh really. There's nothing that's been 'revealed' so far that rises to anything but a private company trying to enforce standards.
But because you didn't realize things like the ToS exist, you think discovering it means there was some conspiracy. Really, it's just your ignorance showing.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:23 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Really, it's just your ignorance showing.
That's fricking rich
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:24 pm to immobileman
quote:
What I find interesting is that it was known the possibility of Elon buying the company since April/May? Had months to clean their litterbox box and just left it exposed and smelly for the new management to go in and scoop some poop. It sincerely baffles me!
Just look at BamaATL in this thread. The bubble is so thick.... the believers are so myopic.. that they still dont think they did anything wrong.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:27 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Private companies are allowed to do that sort of thing.
They were a publicly traded company.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:27 pm to Vacherie Saint
These people who saw incitement to violence in those tweets didn’t think they were wrong or doing anything wrong
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:27 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Oh really. There's nothing that's been 'revealed' so far that rises to anything but a private company trying to enforce standards.
It's ok to admit you didn't read any of the twitter files.
quote:
But because you didn't realize things like the ToS exist, you think discovering it means there was some conspiracy.
You keep bringing this up and i keep telling you, per twitter's own execs, Trump didn't break their TOS. It was revealed TODAY in multiple chats involving twitter execs and employees, that none of Trump's tweets were violating their TOS. They then hopped on a back channel DM and crafted a new rule and then got worried that Jack Dorsey wanted to publish the ruling of why they were banning Trump (but ultimately did not). Yoel Roth is the guilty party here.
Everyone knows your a sycophantic leftist, and absolutely the worst kind of leftist. But to deny what was revealed in this very thread is pretty balsey, considering how quickly you are being owned.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:27 pm to BamaAtl
They literally state, in their own words, that he didnt violate TOS idiot. They banned him because they convinced themselves that his presence on the platform would eventually lead to another Holocaust or Christchurch. They are lunatics just like you.
Posted on 12/12/22 at 3:28 pm to VoxDawg
What this thing shows is that there was an internal debate and the ones who were wrong (imo) won. And that, to me, is an argument why more free speech on Twitter is better. Let that debate play out in public.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News