Twitter declares access to its platform a 'human right' amid censorship of conservatives

a reply to: Tulpa



Open the Pod Bay Doors to your MIND Hal ..............

a reply to: combatmaster

Obi Wan, what's wrong?

It's as if all the Nigerian scammers in the Twatverse cried out in pain and were suddenly silenced ...

a reply to: oloufo

If twitter were a right-wing medium NOBODY would be blocked, banned, doxxed or deplatformed

Only fascists do that gutless sh#t

100% a leftist action

a reply to: Breakthestreak


Yep , the First Amendment to the Constitution Of The United States is Uninfringed , or there WILL BE Hell to Pay..........

a reply to: DAVID64

Does anyone know what was stated in the original tweet?

i.e. what was it that the Nigerian President said, that was then deleted?





ETA: This is what he said

"Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Nigerian Civil War," he wrote in the now-deleted tweet. "Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand."

OP Link

I also agree with a free and open internet.

That is why the likes of twitter must be destroyed. Twitter and those like them are the very antithesis to a free and open internet. Good going Nigeria.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TzarChasm

So the US Constitution has gone from a “goddamn piece of paper” to a End User License Agreement (EULA)?

I’m really hating this rewriting brought on by the left side of the aisle.

So? Now access to the services provided by a private company is a human right? By extension, access to their profiles is a human right???

a reply to: Breakthestreak

If twitter were a right-wing medium NOBODY would be blocked, banned, doxxed or deplatformed

Bank accounts,jobs,Northface orders.

What's currently going on is what the civil rights movement is suppose to be about.

And THEY KNOW they're acting like a bunch of NAZI jackboots, and they don't give a crap.

Because they've deluded themselves in to thinking their on the 'right side of history'.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Yeah, you can't exactly have it both ways, can you??

Buncha hypocrites. Makes me glad I never used my account.

a reply to: neutronflux

I think you missed the point because it is a combination of several points.

1. No one reads EULA’s
2. You can’t claim a moral high ground while actively censoring opposing speech and people.
3. Twitter is less essential than McDonald’s when it comes to life sustaining products.


4. Freedom of the Press (not Speech) is what is at stake here. Freedom of the Press is the right to have your material published and distributed free from government influences. The limit being “matters of national security” but Twitter is an avenue of self publication. It is protected from its members, yet caters to an “exclusive country club mentality.”

So while Twitter engages in discrimination the question remains as to if it is under government influence? There are several question if answered as yes, then the game is up. And a very good chance for a yes is to as if Twitter received any financial or other material backing directly or indirectly from the government.

HAhahahaha.

Access to our platform is a human right.

Except for those weebs we ban completely.

If I had ever had a Twitter account I'd burn it.

but I never have and never will.

Who the heck would be part of something called Twitter?

When I first heard that word and the word tweeting. It sounded awful.

Twitter...lol...

originally posted by: Ahabstar


4. Freedom of the Press (not Speech) is what is at stake here. Freedom of the Press is the right to have your material published and distributed free from government influences. The limit being “matters of national security” but Twitter is an avenue of self publication. It is protected from its members, yet caters to an “exclusive country club mentality.”

The question is: who's content are you banning?

Supposedly Twitter doesn't generate its own content. It merely conveys content created by others.

But if it is curating that content, editing it, or selectively suppressing it, then can the final result be considered to be "press"?

If a guy owns a printing press, and offers his services to book writers to print their books for them, but then starts changing and/or making deletions to the text of those books (or "fact checking" them, sometimes using innacurate "facts" of their own to replace accurate ones.)

Is he living up to the implied warranty of his service?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

No.

At some point you are not publishing the author’s work but the publisher’s work under the author’s name.

While editing of errors (spelling, grammar, word selection, offensive language) or even denial of publishing for taboo content is acceptable...there simply comes a point where it isn’t.

But can claim (or even support) a platitude of morality while suppressing actively opposing viewpoints and even removing content for out of context reasons?

I cannot. And for those reasons and others removed them from my devices. Why give them the illusion of numbers as support?

Which brings up a question? Does Twitter and Facebook operate in countries that should be restricted to having access to such technologies? Or was that another thing that was ended under President Permissive during his world apology tour?

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Who the heck would be part of something called Twitter?

A twit?

Twitter says things like that to have fun with Republican's because they are the only ones stupid enough to believe this. a reply to: DAVID64