• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Leftist Tyranny of Twitter

As I said, it's a fairness issue. And the airwaves are public.

Twitter is not, servers are not, you have no right to their property or platform. So it's unfair. Boo hoo. Sue, make your own, cry more, or get over it. Those are your options.
 
Google with domain registration denial.
Google with Play Store denial.
Paypal with monetization denial.

"Nothing stopping anyone."

Noting except laziness and victim culture.
 
If you want to criticize Twitter, at least we should all acknowledge that Laura Loomer is a crank and a loon, who is stridently anti-Muslim, which pretty infamously got her banned from Uber and Lyft because she refused rides by Muslim drivers. She's repeatedly called for banning Muslims from coming into the country, and routinely slurs Muslims as all terrorists or terrorist supporters, including, infamously, random women walking down the street in NYC near the site of a terrorist attack. According to "right of center" Loomer, the two random women proved their support for terrorism by....being on the street in NYC in that general area dressed in traditional hijabs. She pushed a BS conspiracy about her rotted tires being 'slashed' and is in general a dishonest flame thrower and a shameless, bigoted hack.

So she's a poor martyr about the awful treatment of conservatives by Twitter, and her last tweet was typical of her - attributing evil motives or acts to a Congresswoman because she's Muslim.

So when YOU say: "If you're Jewish and right-of-center Twitter will ban you" that's just complete nonsense. When you're Jewish and a hateful anti-Muslim bigot who regularly spews trash on Twitter, you might in fact get banned when the Twitter people get tired of your bull****. It's just nonsense that her 'sin' was being "right-of-center." Millions and millions of people right of center, and the far right, post on Twitter every hour of every day and somehow don't get banned.... Weird how that works.

Doesn't necessarily mean that Twitter was correct in banning her, I'm indifferent - far worse than her out there, but the least you could do is be honest about who we're talking about and what her ACTUAL views are.

Please quote an anti-Muslim slur from Loomer.
 
Twitter is not, servers are not, you have no right to their property or platform. So it's unfair. Boo hoo. Sue, make your own, cry more, or get over it. Those are your options.

Easy when the tyranny is in your favor.
 
Easy when the tyranny is in your favor.

It's not "in my favor", I just don't give two ****s about Twitter because it's a worthless pile of steaming ****. But those are your options. You have no right to Twitter, it's property, servers, or service.
 
Please quote an anti-Muslim slur from Loomer.

Would something like this do?

“Someone needs to create a non-Islamic form of @uber or @lyft because I never want to support another Islamic immigrant driver,” tweeted Loomer, who briefly worked for the right-wing news site Rebel Media.

“I’m late to the NYPD press conference because I couldn’t find a non Muslim cab or @Uber @lyft driver for over 30 min!” she wrote in another Twitter post, referring to a Wednesday news conference about the attack in New York.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tivist-after-anti-muslim-tweets-idUSKBN1D2095
 
1. I'm not conservative.
2. Twitter runs on the public airwaves.
3. I don't care whether anyone gives a ****. Unfairness should be called out.

1. I don't care.
2. I don't care.
3. I don't care.

How bout dat? :)

One more time: Private corporation, who would have to pay for their time on "public airwaves" just like anyone else, who do not charge for their service, can choose to run their business however they like.

Of all the things you could choose to rail against corporate America about, from environmental issues to health issues to recklessness with investor money, to interfering in politics, to fighting tooth and nail against their obligation to pay a living wage to their employees (the ones who aren't executives, that is), you're gonna pick up the cause of a few worthless assholes who can't post their vitriol to Twitter??

:lamo

I.

Don't.

Care.
 
Please quote an anti-Muslim slur from Loomer.
There is no "tyranny", stop being dramatic.

Twitter is not on "public airwaves" and they have no obligation to explain themselves to the public. They are a private platform that offers people a privilege of using their medium to communicate, but in accordance with their rules, and totally at their discretion.

You have no right to use Twitter, you have no right to demand Twitter enforce the rules in the manner you to desire them to, and you don't have the right to use their platform in any manner you please.

Period, over and done, end of story.
 
Last edited:
It's not "in my favor", I just don't give two ****s about Twitter because it's a worthless pile of steaming ****. But those are your options. You have no right to Twitter, it's property, servers, or service.

I don't use it myself. I just don't like to see tyranny dressed up as principles.
 
Here's a pretty clear example. If you're Jewish and right-of-center Twitter will ban you. If you're on the left and prone to hateful pronouncements you get promoted and praised.

Why Is Sarah Jeong on Twitter and Not Laura Loomer?
Michelle Malkin, Townhall
This is a tale of two young, outspoken women in media.
One is a liberal tech writer. The other is an enterprising conservative new media reporter. One has achieved meteoric success and now works at a top American newspaper. The other has been de-platformed and marginalized. Their wildly different fates tell you everything you need to know about Silicon Valley's free speech double standards.
Some smug elites will downplay Twitter's disparate treatment of these users by arguing that private tech corporations can do whatever they want and that no First Amendment issues have been raised. But this battle is about much more than free speech rights. It's about whether the high-and-mighty progressives who monopolize global social media platforms truly believe in nurturing a free speech culture.
By punishing politically incorrect speech and making punitive examples of free thinkers, tech titans are enforcing their own authoritarian version of Silicon Valley sharia -- a set of both written and unwritten codes constricting expressions of acceptable thought in the name of "safety" and "civility.". . . .

That is not even remotely evidence of any 'leftist tyrrany of Twitter'.

How unsurprising that such dishonesty would be found at Townhall.
 
There is no "tyranny", stop being dramatic.

Twitter is not on "public airwaves" and they have no obligation to explain themselves to the public. They are a private platform that offers people a privilege of using their medium to communicate, but in accordance with their rules, and totally at their discretion.

You have no right to use Twitter, you have no right to demand Twitter enforce the rules in the you to desire them to, and you don't have the right to use their platform in any manner you please.

Period, over and done, end of story.

Without the public airwaves Twitter could not exist.
 
Freedom of speech is a good thing.
Yes, it is.

Freedom of association and private property are also good things, and those are constitutional rights Twitter also has.
 
1. I don't care.
2. I don't care.
3. I don't care.

How bout dat? :)

One more time: Private corporation, who would have to pay for their time on "public airwaves" just like anyone else, who do not charge for their service, can choose to run their business however they like.

Of all the things you could choose to rail against corporate America about, from environmental issues to health issues to recklessness with investor money, to interfering in politics, to fighting tooth and nail against their obligation to pay a living wage to their employees (the ones who aren't executives, that is), you're gonna pick up the cause of a few worthless assholes who can't post their vitriol to Twitter??

:lamo

I.

Don't.

Care.

Fair enough. I'll put you in the "indifferent to freedom" column. Thanks.
 
Without the public airwaves Twitter could not exist.
They are not public airwaves.

They are on internet servers and domains which they own, just like this site.

How do you not know this?
 
Plenty of people do call out Fox News as propaganda, but they aren't crying that liberals get a raw deal on Fox or that it's some sort of attack on free speech, like this thread is about.

Well, yeah, they kinda do.

But again, you're not responding to the actual criticism. No one said it was a First Amendment, legal free speech issue. They said it was a cultural free speech issue -- the cultural idea that everyone should be heard -- and one against their stated values. That's right in the OP, and I already said as much.

It's no different from people screeching at Fox News over their "fair and balanced" slogan.

At this point, I'm going to have to ask -- do you not get the difference, or do you not care about arguing the point on its actual terms?


The point I was responding to was that Twitter has unbalanced the free speech playing field, to which I said this is not a free speech issue. As it is not.

But you're not responding to it on its own terms, as stated above and in my other posts. You're substituting your own.
 
I understood your point and rendered it completely irrelevant to the issue.

Then you're not arguing the actual issue; you're arguing what you'd rather argue instead.

But I'll backtrack and say that you're not so much missing the point as illustrating the point when you say:

One can be about the promotion of free expression while holding people to standards of what is acceptable discourse.

Obviously, they have other rules against racial slurs, sexual material, hate speech, and whatnot, and they free to impose those rules at their discretion. If you don't like it, you can create your own forum.

That's the criticism of them being made -- saying that they're for "free expression" and "every voice," but only on their own terms. Which is not actually free expression or every voice at all.

So, in your own way, you've confirmed the OP. You just don't have a problem with it, any more than Fox News fans have a problem with Fox.
 
Tweets cannot reach your phone with using the public airwaves.
Nor can your car reach a destination without using public roads, but that doesn't mean everyone has a right to drive your car.

ISP's provide you the service that enables you to access Twitter.

If Twitter was a paid for service you'd have an argument, but they're not. They are free to use and free to be taken away.
 
Back
Top Bottom