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.

 

The irony is, if Section 230 were to die, Twitter and Facebook would probably have to ban Trump

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2020 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because freedom is an anathema to them.

Plenty of OTHER countries available to *flee* toward for very satisfying experiences regarding subjugation/oppression tactics. Why ruin it for everyone else that regards 'freedom' as a human right? Why have liberals abandoned their own principles in such a bald turncoat fashion?
edit on 29-5-2020 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2020 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Freedom is now a comodity, something that can be traded now.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Your either naive or disingenuous about it.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 02:29 AM
link   



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Freedom is now a comodity, something that can be traded now.


Now that is a stock worth making a day trade on when the SHTF.
edit on 30-5-2020 by FlyingSquirrel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

All of you who keep claiming this are not paying attention to what is actually happening.

Section 230 is not dying. Nothing is happening to the part of 230 that protects the platforms from the content that remains on the site.

What is actually happening. They are defining the terms of section 230 that allows these platforms to remove content. If they don’t follow the new guidelines and continue to remove content for political reasons they will be open to lawsuits.

This EO does not give them more power to remove content, rather it limits their ability to remove content to the original purpose. Which is to remove content that would be consider illicit or illegal.

So they either leave content up that they don’t agree with but is not illicit or illegal or risk being sued for violating people’s constitutional rights.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel




Too funny, it's quite the show watching the usual suspects screeching about their free speech while supporting censorship...fun times



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Just thunk of all the other people who could have just moved and kept things quiet for the sake of not angering the majority. Move to another country, another state, another city (dont let the sun set in ya) or maybe just the back of the bus. Thats what you argue for, no? A bit of hyperbole on my part ill admit...but your logic doesnt carry

And yes, if Amazons practices became discriminatory id expect them to be handled appropriately.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian




Putting aside the idiocy and blatant hypocrisy of Trump and his followers pushing for government action against a private company and their terms and conditions, that very section (230) they preach for would serve against Trump himself and similar:


That's rich coming from the same people that forced wedding cake bakers to their will.

A private company.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel


That's hilarious.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Poor weak conservatives.
Can't compete in the social media market place so they have to get daddy government to do it for them.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96




That's rich coming from the same people that forced wedding cake bakers to their will. A private company.


You think these two things are the same?

If you see how wrong this was why are you now condoning the same thing?



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
But the government can intervene in a private bakery’s terms and conditions ?

Or can a private bakery refuse service to whoever they want to as well?


Do you think it's right that this happened?

If not why would you condone this type of action now?

If this situation is different some how then why even bring up the bakery?



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Metallicus


So what is your solution to the severe bias of Twitter and FB?


Move somewhere else? Start your own social media? Trump's rich, right? He has plenty of support and backers? Should be easy for him to start his own, right?

We've been told for years that's the beauty of freedom and capitalism. Simply 'move' to another State. Simiple 'start' your own. Now all of a sudden the government needs to take action again the private company because Trump had his feelings hurt from being corrected?

You don't see the hypocrisy?

What, are you going to target other monopolies as well? Walmart? Google? Amazon? Comcast?

You're consistent right?


if he did that, wouldn't you cry like a little bitch about the emolument's clause?



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel




Too funny, it's quite the show watching the usual suspects screeching about their free speech while supporting censorship...fun times


You actually think this is a real tweet?



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrennanHuff22

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel




Too funny, it's quite the show watching the usual suspects screeching about their free speech while supporting censorship...fun times


You actually think this is a real tweet?




It's a parody of the real tweet and it's funny and relevant.

Its similar the right saying the left can't meme, the right cant social media so it's tit for tat.



posted on May, 30 2020 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I hope Twitter bans Trump.

Really.

Do it.

Right now, Twitter.

BAN TRUMP.

Do it.

Dooooooo it.

I dare you.

Do it.


Twitter banning Trump would be the best thing for him... No late night tweeting for him, I would love it.



posted on May, 31 2020 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Poor weak conservatives.
Can't compete in the social media market place so they have to get daddy government to do it for them.


Come on now, that's Bullsh!t and you know it.

Twitter started as a place for everyone to say what they want to say until it became a monopoly.

Once they got to that status, they then started deciding who's opinion they liked and who's they did not like.

If Twitter had openly started as a left wing soapbox then you would have a point.

But they didn't and I think that is extremely deceptive.



posted on May, 31 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel




Too funny, it's quite the show watching the usual suspects screeching about their free speech while supporting censorship...fun times


Censorship? This would be anti-censorship. I always thought the left was for that. Hmmm. Guess not.



posted on May, 31 2020 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Damn. I am going to have to start following your posts. They seem to make much better statements about what I want to say.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join