Laura Loomer banned from Twitter after criticizing Ilhan Omar

How exactly is that Antisemitism?

 

What if a clear pattern started to emerge of conservatives getting banned for not actually saying anything which breached the rules, but the same wasn't happening to liberals? Would this be enough for you? Or would you still need "documented evidence of a discriminatory policy or some kind of confession?"

I wasn't asking for the meaning, I was asking if it is your understanding that there is a widely recognised connection between Jews and termites. You've said no. So is it your understanding that there is a widely recognised connection between Muslims and terrorism?

So saying that someone is "pro-Sharia" is making "negative assumptions about an individual on the basis of [their] religion?" Surely you can't be serious. Muslims would say that it is a very POSITIVE thing to be pro-Sharia! They would never take it as an insult if someone called them that!

 

The bottom line is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for any social media to grant true freedom of speech for the reasons I gave above. It can't be done, it won't work and you'd be out of business in a month at most.

Look, like I just said, go ahead, start your own twitter and tell everyone up front there won't be ANY limitations on what you can say. It should be much more entertaining than regular twitter and you'll make a bloody fortune. I'm not at all knowledgeable about computers but I do think that Twitter is really just a website, yes? So you can make one. It won't be nearly as fast at first but it will have most of the functionality

What are you waiting for? Don't you get it?

 

When conservative voices are banned from rwitter is becomes just a liberal socialist echo chamber

 

It might help but it’s difficult to establish equivalence of behaviour, as demonstrated by the range of opinions on the two tweets presented in this thread. Unless you can establish people doing exactly the same thing being consistently treated differently, rather than a generic opinion of another user’s behaviour being as bad or worse, you would need a lot more examples than the handful commonly raised. There’s also the issue that not all the evidence is necessarily in the public domain; previous tweets could be removed, by the user or Twitter and unless they’re all somehow captured and presented, we won’t necessarily have all of the relevant information Twitter used to make it’s decisions.

Yes. I’m not saying Farrakhan isn’t an idiot, I’m only saying that his tweet as quoted, taken out of any other context, isn’t as clearly and definitively insulting as Loomer’s. He could have been making a stupid racist statement or he could have been making a stupid non-racist statement. It could be perfectly justifiable for Twitter to ban him based on his wider behaviour but this wasn’t the implication of the simple comparison or two individual tweets. If it were an easy question, there wouldn't be any controversy in the first place.

Don’t play dumb. You know perfectly well that Loomer’s meaning was entirely negative.

 

So you are rating sexism and racism with conservatism. Good on you.

 

Which is maybe a little dull but far more profitable for Twitter.

Social media sells mainly "eyes" not clicks or sales but just viewings of a particular message.

Do you remember way back like last year when everyone was criticising social media as this vapid vehicle where the chronically self-absorbed posted pictures of their lunch (or their generative organs but that's a whole other thing)? Well THAT'S what made Zuckerberg 17 billions, not the politics. I wonder if Zuckerberg and the Saudi Princes who now own most of Twitter aren't wondering how they can ban politics entirely

I maintain that all social media are BUSINESSES, not public services, and must be viewed as such if we are to understand them properly

 

Thats your story not mine

 

The constitution and bill of rights are there to protect you from government by imposing limits on it. It as **** all to do with inter relation with individuals or private enterprise. I don't have to respect your right of free speech on my propriety or in my place of business. As othe rhave said, if you don't like it you're free to create your own.

 

I dont follow Twitter or Facebook and limit the damage to my brain from media to this forum

So I dont recall anything about Facebook trends last year

But how fortunate for lefties who want a liberal monoculture that liberal FaceBook is alligned with their desires

 

True, and you do have a point. I said money which was not my real arguement. Although you do end up paying some money (do you buy anything or play subscription games via facebook? Do you click through facebook or twitter to a merchandise site?) but its not the major feature that funds the tyrants.

The major point is that people who value free speech and freedom should not fund the tyrants by using their social media platforms.

 

That he can. Because as a private citizen he aint doing something for the public. Twitter is providing a service, like any commercial enterprise. And so they can't just deny service. Civil rights act etc.

 

Sure they can as Twitter is not a public utility and anyone can set up a Twitter type system if you are unhappy with Twitter.

 

Of course you can answer your own question, unless your google is broke.

 

I argued in my previous question that such a thing is not relevant and you're not responding to that.

I'm not about to invent something that's not there.

I'm under the impression that twitter provides a service.
I'm under the impression that we got laws against racism etc under the civil rights act.
I'm under the impression that nothing and nobody is above the law.
And that is what matters.

 

We got laws against expressing racist ideas?????

Since when had that happen as I seem to had missed such an event happening.

In fact there are posters on this system that would likely be looking at charges if there was such laws.

 

But it is. Everybody on the planet can get access to it.

 

You go source where I wrote that.

 

Anyone in most of the world can get access to most of the internet so that in and of itself does not mean that is is all a public utility.

 

Internet is a public utility and the service Twitter provides, in essence, doesn't exclude anybody. You simply check in that you commit to their terms and you're set. Twitter is also not above the law. Let that last past sink in. That's why they can't apply Jim Crow laws, pay taxes, can't help out terrorists like Al Qaida, etc etc.

 

You do not understand PA laws, notme, that is your issue to resolve. As the law is now, Twitter is safe from regulation.

The states and the feds could change the laws: they won't.

 

I think you and the other libs totally miss the point

We dont need America divided into waring camps of Twitter and anti Twitter

The idea is one town square where different points of view are expressed

This liberal dream of suppressing conservstive speech will not make conservstives go away

 

The New Public Square simply needs to honor free speech; not complicated.

 

And of course the entire premise of the thread is based on the false idea that left and right aren't being equally silenced in the NPS.

Instead of working together to protect free speech, squabbling.

(Or worse, liberals who want to burn the Constitution.)