re: What are online idea platforms if they aren’t “for free speech”?

quote:

---

DOJ definitely had cause to investigate whether members of Trump’s campaign were coordinating anything with Russian intelligence. Carter Page was a known Russian intelligence asset and Paul Manafort’s parter was a Russian intelligence officer. Russians hacked a whole bunch of people and used Wikileaks to spread that information in order to help Trump win. I’m glad we investigated and indicted when there was a criminal case to be made.

---

The fact that you still believe it is truly insane.

quote:

---

Everything you just quoted is true. Amazing to me that people are still having problems with the subject matter.

---

And you still won’t admit that there was no coordination and everyone involved was part of the Clinton campaign/DNC, as seen with the latest arrests, i.e. Danchenko.

Let’s not even talk about the actual data regarding the corruption between the Bidens and China.

quote:

---

Let’s not further derail this thread. Not my intent.

---

We aren’t actually having a discussion.

You hold the position that Twitter’s new stances are great and, IMO, you know it will be used to suppress what you believe to be wrongthink along with non-mainstream journalism.

I do not agree with the idea and support open discussion with little to no intervention from those you deem to be arbiters of truth.

We won’t see eye to eye, nor will we change each other’s views.

It is largely pointless and there really is no middle ground to meet on.

You will push the stance of “create your own platform”, which you and the other regressives will then force entities to remove from their stores and programs.

There is no middle ground to meet on with you regressives.

quote:

---

You’re mistaking my positions. I think the new policy that was announced today seems like a bad idea. This thread is about a rather innocuous answer the new guy gave about Twitter’s content recommendations, which I think I’ve addressed the best I can.

---

Do you think one is an aberration?

quote:

---

You’re mistaking my positions.

---

I doubt it.

quote:

---

I think the new policy that was announced today seems like a bad idea.

---

I also doubt it.

quote:

---

This thread is about a rather innocuous answer the new guy gave about Twitter’s content recommendations, which I think I’ve addressed the best I can.

---

And I disagree that that was what he was stating as noted by the 1st policy change he made after becoming CEO.

But, as I said, we won’t meet eye to eye on this, or really anything else at this point.

This is a quintessential example of why a political separation is needed.

We simply do not have any common ground as Americans anymore.

quote:

---

I think the subject is this thread is a rather forgetful interview that this guy gave.

---

The subsequent actions seem to belie that.

quote:

---

I get it.

Philosophically, I don’t believe that these platforms are in business to create free speech, or provide access to it. They are in business to make money, not promote free speech. They can enter into contracts with anyone they want.

People get pissed off at being banned bc they think they are Twitter/Facebook’s customers. They’re wrong. We aren’t their customers. We’re what they are selling to their customers.

---

This is pretty much it. The online platforms aren't for "free speech". They're businesses created for the purpose of making money. If you think they've violated the terms a person agreed to when signing up to use their services, then sue them for breach of contract.