It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Twitter suspends alt-right accounts

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

Or it's discriminating against an ideology.

Either way, like any other on-line business that discriminates, it won't see my business.




Yet I assume you're just fine with ATS's list of banned sources?



Did realize Twitter and ATS were identical.

My bad.
edit on 16-11-2016 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
The not-so-tolerant-after-all Liberal brigade in full force. Or... just hypocrites enforcing their hypocrisy.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
If ATS banned me based on my beliefs of UFO's. . . . or if I thought 9/11 was planned by Bush, then ATS would be like Twitter.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Did realize Twitter and ATS were identical.

My bad.


They're both social media platforms anyone can sign up on, and then spout their opinions off to the world. They're not all that different. Are you against ATS saying they don't want certain sources on their platform? That's the same thing Twitter did.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It's not sources, it's ideology.

Might as well admit it.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

It's not sources, it's ideology.

Might as well admit it.


Banning mention of a topic would be ideology. Banning specific people is sources.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
This is simply a chess move to get more negative buzz around the Alt-Right and force Trump to dump Steve Bannon. I guess the Left didn't learn that Trump doesn't kowtow to those sorts of tactics - he doubles down.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Oh wow this looks neat. Click click click Terms Of Use ugh why do they always annoy us with this (doesn't bother to read) clicks yes. Gets upset when with agreed upon policies get used/put into action.

Hey remember that time when lots and lots of people lost their collective mind when Facebook decided that ANYTHING you posted became theirs?
But we didn't read the TOU!!! You sure all got lucky on that one.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If ATS banned me based on my beliefs of UFO's. . . . or if I thought 9/11 was planned by Bush, then ATS would be like Twitter.


According to ATS TOU you wouldn't be banned for that.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So if Twitter was a bakery, it wouldn't have to allow for public accommodation and bake a cake?

No because it isn't discrimination to ban racist aholes.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Maybe the alt-right should start an alt-twitter? )))



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

It could be. Or it could be to please investors, advertisers, and the board of directors. People have strong opinions about the alt-right and Twitter might be pandering to large advertising accounts...or perhaps some influential board members are very anti alt-right?

Maybe Twitter wants to keep the people paying for 'sponsored tweets' to keep paying for them, but if those people don't like the alt-right they'll pull their paid-for, 'sponsored tweets'. That's a big revenue stream for Twitter.

Never underestimate the power of the almighty dollar. A lot of people who get kicked off Twitter or Facebook instantly turn to some kind of shady conspiracy, but I would wager to guess $$$ is the motivating factor above anything else.

People seem to think they're more important than a huge corporation's bottom line and quarterly earnings.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds like Twitter* Needs some New Blood to Deal with in the Communications Market . Be Nice if Mr. Trump Pulled a Teddy Roosevelt on the Modern Trusts we have Today . A Free Market Is Never Really Free without Competition .
edit on 17-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: spelling



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
Typical.

Censoring what you don't like is fine, but get outraged over censoring what you do like.

The hypocrisy is strong in America.


Censorship of any kind is an affront to liberty.


edit on 17/11/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
No because it isn't discrimination to ban racist aholes.


Still a form of bigotry you are agreeing with, however...



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost


Censorship of any kind is an affront to liberty.



So, you must be fine with snuff films, child pornography distribution, etc.

OK... I don't agree with you, but that's your opinion.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: Snippythehorse
a reply to: xuenchen
In a First Amendment America it cannot stand.....
The lawyers will enrich themselves on this one.....yech....



Twitter is a private company. Not the government.

It can silence who it wants, when it wants.


That does not make it right though. It does however show that they are afraid of what people might say. The only ones who are afraid enough of what people might say and to censor them for it are the ones that have something to hide.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408




Actually the government cannot.
Which was my point.

& to be honest I don't care if twitter silenced Richard Spencer.
He is a disgusting man who brainwashes vulnerable people.


The government can, but they face consequences for doing so.

If you don't care about free speech for views you do not like, you do not care about free speech.



When your words can have a harmful influence, no I don't care about free speech.

Rights to ought fallacy.


And who gets to decide what is harmful? You?

Does "harmful influence" include persuading people to vote for a politician other than your preferred candidate?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
So, you must be fine with snuff films, child pornography distribution, etc.

OK... I don't agree with you, but that's your opinion.


I was referring to censorship in the form of suppressing people with opposing ideological, social and moral views. I did not say nor imply that the distribution of illegal porn should be permitted.


edit on 17/11/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds like Twitter* Needs some New Blood to Deal with in the Communications Market . Be Nice if Mr. Trump Pulled a Teddy Roosevelt on the Modern Trusts we have Today . A Free Market Is Never Really Free without Competition .


Twitter has competition. There's a lot of social media websites out there.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join