Not twitters.
Finally! You betcha. One of the most anti-liberal concepts ever. It is pure fascism. You bet I am.
Get rid of it. Get government back on itâs side of the line. But the whole line. Not just what you donât like.
Twitter, Facebook, this forum and all the other privately owned entities absolutely have the right to refuse service to anyone.
So do the bakeries, cupcake shops, motels and lunch counters.
No double standards. No hypocrisy.
1 Like
Ah⊠so none of this was being argued in good faith.
Cool
Cool.
Thereâs nothing physical about a discussion forum.
Oh. I thought you were listing types of chemistries.
1 Like
Good faith? Every bit of it is. Faith in liberalism. Public accommodation laws currently exist. Every argument I have made in this thread is the same argument made to justify the abusive nature of them.
My personal favorite is the âTheir door opens on the public sidewalk Gambitâ.
The demands being made now are the logical extension of the concepts from then evolving into todayâs environment.
The claim of unpersoning is also an extension of same. Remember the justifications for subsidized smart phone purchases? For the tax-payer provision of broadband service? The Governor of Texas has declared that one an âemergencyâ for some reason.
Is it not true that if you donât have an online presence in todayâs world, Facebook, Twitter, maybe Instagram, you donât have a voice in todayâs mainstream society?
And when somebody takes away your voice, what do they effectively do? Is that not oppression?
How about a platform provider who refuses service to black people or homosexuals or CRT forbid - black lesbian single mothers?
I absolutely support the right of Twitter and Facebook to refuse service to Trump, Greene or anybody else.
Will you join me in supporting that same right for every other business owner to refuse service to anybody else?
1 Like
No you didnât. You can deny it, but you canât hide from it.
We werenât discussing Twitter at the moment, now were we?
Good OP. Good thread.
Neolibs hate free speech⊠Tech tyranny and burka faces
Here you go. This is what is happening. In reverse. His movement has become what he fought against.
You were with me
Was that reply to you about you?
I am getting a mixed message here
If public accommodation laws exist (something you oppose) then it is right to advocate for private platforms to host content that it does not want (something you also oppose) because⊠well ⊠I donât know why really because it makes no sense.
You have a right to free speech
You do not have a right to someone elseâs private platform.
You made a statement to me about Twitter based on feelings⊠then told another user that there feelings about hannity moderation is incorrect
Youâre right. But your one word, âorganicâ did leave me in the dark as to your thinking, and I donât think I am the only one. It might be helpful to be more verbose in the future.
My reply was trying to point that out in the same fashion.
Sneaky, Trump was never denied service for being Trump. He was denied service for breaking their rules. Can businesses not have rules?
You have a right to have a cakeâŠbut you donât have a right to force someone else to bake that cake.
3 Likes
No you arenât. You are attempting to set up a Hypocrisy Defense by creating a narrative out of counterfactuals and assumptions you know to be false.
No where have I advocated any such thing or said âit was rightâ, you assumed it because you needed to. And when you finally asked instead of telling, what answer did you get?
Iâm not the one guilty of hypocrisy. Of picking and choosing who rights apply to, what is âworthyâ and what is not.
If the law exists, it exists for all. If it is bad law, get rid of it - for all. I can take the bad with the good. I can handle not just my freedom, but yours. Can you?
I am not trying to recreate society in my own image. You can have yours and Iâll have mine; just stay on your side of the fence.
Liberalism.