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.

 

Should Ice Cube Be banned For Life On Twitter?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:17 PM
link   
So it seems that Ice Cube push the narrative of this photo, and it was because of his tweet about it that started a lot of anger over something that was totally fake and most likely fueled the rioting and the death of at least one person. BTW it is really hard to fine now...

The guy with the hat on is not the cop, and is an online troll and ex-felon, who does a lot of these stunts like he went to one of Hillary's speeches dressed as a Muslim and held a sign saying Muslims are with Hillary.



Ice Cube later tweeted

“How long will we go for Blue on Black Crime before we strike back???”
Which is a hate crime and suggesting the Black community should open hunting season on cops.

There was some outrage over it and then he posted...

“Anybody coming at me for what I said ain’t ready to do s***…”
No apologies, so rewording, basically telling everyone who doesn't agree with him to FO.

Mark Zuckerberg recently berated Twitter's decision to "fact Check" and said it should not be up to the social platform to be the facts police and people can make their own decisions and do their own research... He took a lot of heat over that.

Watching Joe Rogan, he was saying that it is crazy that OJ can talk all he wants on social media and that is OK, but if Joe did something like say Caitlyn Jenner was hot, but in a joking way not meaning it, he would be banned for life. Lots of WOKE crazy rules....

So with all this Twitter crap going on what say you?




edit on 28-5-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Well according to Joe Biden (and EVERY leftist on this site), Ice Cube is not black.

Which means, he can be banned for life.

And Bruce Jenner is not hot.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I'm not sure how people can be fooled by that. They look nothing alike.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

And Bruce Jenner is not hot.


Its OK to say that, you just can't say she/he is hot and not mean it...



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I missed something. DId Bruce Jenner take a trip to Death Valley or did the Kardashian AC break or something? Why would Jenner be hot?



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Tensions are very high across all segments of American culture right now. We are going through something our fathers, grandfathers and forefathers have never gone through in the entire history of the United States.

It's a very dangerous time as citizens become desperate and sometimes push to the very edge. What you have to be very careful about is that social media believe it or not is more policed than our streets and full of snitches. If you say, imply or leave any impression of a threat against anyone in the government even if it's something general you are putting yourself and your family at great risk.

Be very careful about your speech right now which I know is hard because everyone is feeling things at an extreme but this is the exact time when all eyes are upon you. Do not make anything that can be deemed a threat on any form of social media, that is what they want you to do.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I missed something. DId Bruce Jenner take a trip to Death Valley or did the Kardashian AC break or something? Why would Jenner be hot?


Lol that is the thing, her/she is not hot, so you break rules by saying it and not meaning it, as crazy as it seems. It was Joe Rogan's example of how crazy the rules are that they must follow while other don't really need to.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


So with all this Twitter crap going on what say you?


I'd say twitter can do what they like on their own website. They set the rules, the terms and conditions, and people can either accept or move on somewhere else. Just like Breitbart, just like Stormfront.

Now, do I morally believe twitter should take action on all misinformation, yes. Not familiar with this ice cube post but if the above is true, I think they should keep consistent. It's up to them though.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

Now, do I morally believe twitter should take action on all misinformation, yes. Not familiar with this ice cube post but if the above is true, I think they should keep consistent. It's up to them though.


That is what Trump's Executive Order says....They are safe as a third party, but they must follow their own rules with everyone. Makes sense.

Do you feel they can set rules and then pick and choose who they allow to break them or not? That is kind of my point.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The problem is that Twit is playing fast and loose with the laws.

There are laws that shield them in various ways depending on if they are a platform or a publisher. Now publishers control the media on their sites, and that's where the censorship comes in, only it's editing when a publisher does it. Breitbart is a publisher, and I've never been to Stormfront, so I don't know what its format is - if it's more like a blog like Breitbart or a forum like here, but either way, it's a publisher because it can moderate and edit the views expressed.

What Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube claim to be are platform where the they merely provide the means for independent publishers to make their own content widely available to others. In that guise, they are not in any way responsible for what content developers do with their platform, and that stance shields them from liability should a content provider put up something pretty terrible.

But if you're a publisher ... well, you are liable for every single thing produced for your site.

What the media platforms have been doing is claiming one stance or another as suits them. They tell the world they're platforms, but then they take steps to control what you produce if they find it objectionable without clearly defining what may or may not cross that line. It's a misrepresentation of sorts. If they're editing or banning you, then they're publishers gatekeeping your content, but they told you they were a platform, and if you sneak in a video others find offensive, they'll dodge liability by telling everyone they're a platform.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
Wells, i dont think ice t wAs ever banned for his Song cop killer. I mean, maybe ice Cube is setting himself Up for an acting career where he spends over ten years being the police.

And then he can do a concert for that song while still contracted to play a new York City police detective. Is that sweet irony or what??



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The problem is that Twit is playing fast and loose with the laws.

There are laws that shield them in various ways depending on if they are a platform or a publisher. Now publishers control the media on their sites, and that's where the censorship comes in, only it's editing when a publisher does it. Breitbart is a publisher, and I've never been to Stormfront, so I don't know what its format is - if it's more like a blog like Breitbart or a forum like here, but either way, it's a publisher because it can moderate and edit the views expressed.

What Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube claim to be are platform where the they merely provide the means for independent publishers to make their own content widely available to others. In that guise, they are not in any way responsible for what content developers do with their platform, and that stance shields them from liability should a content provider put up something pretty terrible.

But if you're a publisher ... well, you are liable for every single thing produced for your site.

What the media platforms have been doing is claiming one stance or another as suits them. They tell the world they're platforms, but then they take steps to control what you produce if they find it objectionable without clearly defining what may or may not cross that line. It's a misrepresentation of sorts. If they're editing or banning you, then they're publishers gatekeeping your content, but they told you they were a platform, and if you sneak in a video others find offensive, they'll dodge liability by telling everyone they're a platform.



Very well said...

And they are abusing this as Redneck explains just what 230 is all about..They jump back and forth, and YES its politically bias unless someone can convince me they are all libertarians.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
Section 230 was put in place to allow online social media outlets to delete posts that might be disturbing to its customers... porn, gore, that kind of thing. The idea was to make it easier for social media sites to protect children viewers from that kind of stuff. It was never intended to be a cover to remove political posts in violation of their own requirements for posting. Now, with this Executive Order, Twitter and Facebook have to follow their own rules.



edit on 28-5-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Xtrozero


So with all this Twitter crap going on what say you?


I'd say twitter can do what they like on their own website. They set the rules, the terms and conditions, and people can either accept or move on somewhere else. Just like Breitbart, just like Stormfront.

Now, do I morally believe twitter should take action on all misinformation, yes. Not familiar with this ice cube post but if the above is true, I think they should keep consistent. It's up to them though.


It’s great that you think bakeries can refuse service to whoever they want for any reason whatsoever



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

It’s great that you think bakeries can refuse service to whoever they want for any reason whatsoever


They didn't actually refuse service, they didn't want to make something that has strong religious convictions for them and offered to make anything else... but we know how the narrative went, don't we...



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak


It’s great that you think bakeries can refuse service to whoever they want for any reason whatsoever


I didn't know somebody born black is comparable to the President being able to say anything he wants on any private format.

Quite a stretch, but then again I'm seeing a lot of that these days.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


The problem is that Twit is playing fast and loose


The only people that are having problems are Trump and his ardent supporters. Can't seem to move on and go somewhere else. Everybody else is fine. The rest of the world is moving on just fine.


There are laws that shield them in various ways depending on if they are a platform or a publisher. Now publishers control the media on their sites, and that's where the censorship comes in,


We'll see how well that argument plays out further down the track.


Breitbart is a publisher,


Breitbart also has forums for discussions. There are also plenty of other forums out there that are conservative in focus. I'm pretty sure they set their own rules and take their own actions they see fit. They're private, just like Twitter.



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Oh yes, for those of you unfamiliar with the 1996 law people are touting on here;


Section 230, a provision in a 1996 law, protects companies on the internet like Twitter and Facebook from being regulated as publishers of third-party content like tweets and Facebook posts.

Section 230 also gives social-media sites the ability to regulate content on their platforms.

Legal experts told Business Insider that parts of Trump’s order are likely illegal and will be difficult if not impossible to enforce.

Source



posted on May, 28 2020 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I say the only people that should decide on who can use twitter are the owners of twitter.

Twitter is not our property. We do not own it.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

I say the only people that should decide on who can use twitter are the owners of twitter.

Twitter is not our property. We do not own it.


But are they a platform or a publisher? Big differences there with different rules. A platform is a third party so they are not liable to what people write, once they start editing they become a publisher and are now liable for everything posted.

They want to be a platform that can not be liable, but with editor rights...and it just doesn't work that way.




edit on 29-5-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
Moderated platform.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join