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.

 

Trump threatens to “look into” Twitter for shadow banning Republicans

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: eXia7

So what. What does that mean for you?
Yeah. Just sayin..


Means a lot to me as a business owner. It means a strong economy will allow me to expand my business.



As a business owner do you believe the president should have the power to dictate to you your company policies?
Do you want government more involved in your private business or less?




posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




If the banning is based on ideology, then it would be discrimination. But we've already established you are for that.


I will always be on the side of more rights to my private property, yes.

Less government involvement. less regulation.

If a business wont serve someone for whatever reason then let the market decide if they stay in business.

Personally I would never give my money to a business that is racist or run by bigots.
But I will fight for them to have more freedom to do with their property what they like.



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Interesting.


So if a state had a vote, and wanted to ban (say. . . . ) abortion in that state, you'd support that.



Right?






posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Edit: because I misread state in your reply as fed.

If the government told a state what laws to make regarding abortion I am against that.

Even though I am pro-choice.

I am more state and business rights.
Business first though. So if a state tries to tell a business what to do I am against it.

edit on 28-7-2018 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2018 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2018 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah


Many years ago, I was a contributing editor to Townhall.com. I often "chatted" with others. One talk led us to Sean Hannity's site to carry on the conversation.

Hannity banned me.

The bastard.


Ermahgerd, the NERVE. You should totally go full snowflake & sue his ass for policing his site like it's his or something. Pfft, who doesn't understand that the posters own the sites now regardless of who actually legally owns them? Get with the times, people, get with the times.

/sarc

Seriously though, it's the internet and it's Twitter. Either find another place to post, or build your own with your own rules. It's not that hard to do, KIDS do it.



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Fair enough I suppose.

So you sided with the bakery who didn't make the cake for the gay couple's wedding.

So you'd side with a business who wanted segregated lunch counters.


*shrug*

To each their own I suppose.



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The power structure should be:

People

state

fed



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




So you sided with the bakery who didn't make the cake for the gay couple's wedding.


Yes I did.
But I personally would never buy a cake from them myself.



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

At some point, public accommodation is going to come into play.

They haven't yet on the internet.

Oh well.

*shrugs*



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

At some point, public accommodation is going to come into play.

They haven't yet on the internet.

Oh well.

*shrugs*



Agreed, it is of course what the liberals want . And they are winning the social game for sure.



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

At some point, public accommodation is going to come into play.

They haven't yet on the internet.

Oh well.

*shrugs*


Sure. Until someone goes with hosting from abroad to avoid having to play by American rules.

People don't think too far ahead when they get pissy about the web. This isn't as cut & dry as offline life, it's REALLY easy to circumvent laws online if a mind is put to it. Location, location, location -- rules the roost, kwim?



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I've got some serious issues with any censorship on social media except for that which directly threatens violence.

For a simple reason.

You can unfollow/like someone. I don't see what's so complicated. You don't want to see Pres. Trump's tweets, don't follow him. Unfollow him. You don't want to see what a conservative politician has to say, don't like him.

If your friend is retweeting stuff you don't want unfollow them.

What's so friggin difficult?

If you talk with me a in a bar and don't like what I'm saying you can walk away ending the conversation. Why do you need someone to ban me from talking to you?

Twitter and Facebook should both be regulated to ensure freedom of speech, OR they should cease to exist - sued to oblivion for civil rights violations.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
This is so dumb on so many levels. If you seriously think this is a free speech issue you may need to go back to grade school.

Twitter can ban and censor for whatever they like. Same as Facebook, Instagram, Snap Chat, and the rest of the social media platforms.

Your right to free speech isn’t being infringed on if you’re blocked from these platforms. Your right to free speech doesn’t entitle you to say whatever you want while using a private companies platform.

I’d love it if Facebook allowed nudity, but they don’t and can ban you if you post it. Guess what? I’ve got a plethora of other sites I can get nudity from.

You people run in circles and you dont get it after a year or so
What if fakebook allows nudity and gay porn tomorrow for children to see? Kids have signed up their T&C. Its private, with their own laws, no-gun signs, no-constitution signs... Where is the line? It's too big, a monopoly, your business is harmed for false accusations like those of Lex Jones, no adds money, they deny you access to the free market... while making billions on your stupid kids. They can bend their own rules or make new ones - there's no supervision organ. In the meantime these hypocrites obey laws of communist China and censor stuff, report people or they are finished - no problem, but they piss on a constitution of another country. See the obvious bs?
These questions were hanging in the air for a long time. The left has gone too far. Its complicated and Trump has better things to do but it has started in the RIGHT time so chances are good it wont be the EU - full-government-thought control socialist model but rather the opposite.
Or maybe we will see a couple of lawsuits and maybe the market alone will punish the lala-land companies. Or both plus a new law. One thing is sure - there will be no real debate but two trenches. Fake media -they will squeal like pigs
Next: California-like states' unlawful obstructions of 2nd amendment.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
This is so dumb on so many levels. If you seriously think this is a free speech issue you may need to go back to grade school.

Twitter can ban and censor for whatever they like. Same as Facebook, Instagram, Snap Chat, and the rest of the social media platforms.

Your right to free speech isn’t being infringed on if you’re blocked from these platforms. Your right to free speech doesn’t entitle you to say whatever you want while using a private companies platform.

I’d love it if Facebook allowed nudity, but they don’t and can ban you if you post it. Guess what? I’ve got a plethora of other sites I can get nudity from.

You people run in circles and you dont get it after a year or so
What if fakebook allows nudity and gay porn tomorrow for children to see? Kids have signed up their T&C. Its private, with their own laws, no-gun signs, no-constitution signs... Where is the line?

Got so worked up about it that you forgot they can't legally hand kids porn like that, didn't you?
Also, there's a reason porn sites have to disallow minors as registered users, 18 & up only (presuming the underaged themselves follow the law about it & don't lie/use an adult's account)

AND, this is a kicker, you as the parent need to work on that parental software literacy. You certainly can't control what they see outside the home, but at home, it's your iron fist or nothing. And if you're too lazy to use the software (even Microsoft's built-in stuff is adequate) then you don't deserve to complain.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Apologies if this has been posted already. But for those who are "late arrivals" to this thread, as I am:

Congressman Devin Nunes is looking at "legal remedies" to take against Twitter, for Shadow Banning.

Story: www.washingtonexaminer.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

YOuve missed the point. Point is your internal rules cant deny the law. For the rules and laws applies they cant be unconstitutional. Its that simple. Game over.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
In cased someone missed it.

Private companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Just ask gay wedding cake bakers.



Gotta love how they set up traps for themselves to fall into.



new topics




 
15
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join