Twitter has permanently banned Trump for "incitement of violence". Do you agree with it?

Question

Trump has been permanently banned by Twitter. While the ban was praised and many congratulated Twitter for finally taking action against Trump's speech especially Joe Biden who has said he wants companies like Facebook and Twitter to do more to take down hate speech, fake news and wants to repeal Section 230, a law protecting social media companies from being sued for the things people post. There is also others who disagree. German leader Angela Merkel who said the ban was problematic and the President of Mexico who said that he doesn't like anybody being censored. Others have also called out Twitter for being bias against Trump and not banning people like the Iran Prime Minister who defends executing gay people in Iran and a few others as well. Many others fear that this allows corporations and people with power to abuse this as they want social media to be treated as "publishers", rather than platforms meaning much more regulation as in what kind of speech is allowed and that would allow “fake news,” which risks being selectively used as a political tool against political opponents. There also others who are critical of Twitter for the rampant toxicity on the platform. What do you think? Do you agree with Twitter banning Trump or do you think this will effect debates and conversations on social media?

P. s please try to be civil in the comments below.

Twitter has permanently banned Trump for incitement of violence. Do you agree with it?

Yes, I support the ban and also speech regulations.

Yes, I support the ban but not speech regulations.

No, I don't support it.

Neither. I hate Twitter.

Select age and gender to cast your vote:

GirlGuy

Answer 1

nightdrot | 2.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Influencer

Preface to answering, hereby my credentials are proffered. I am a Republican who has worked in politics for over 30 years and am no fan of President Trump and did not vote for him in 2016.

Further, I have no love of Twitter. It is the National Enquirer of the grotesquely limited attention span. 280 character statements not being a thought, but rather a thought fragment. It conduces then not to reason but emotion and pace, Henry L. Stimson's "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail" I firmly believe that "Gentlemen do not 'tweet.'" This then helping to explain Mr. Trump's proclivity for using that medium.

That said, the question has two answers. One legal and the other cultural and political. As Mr. Trump is paradoxically not central to either answer, I did not vote. However, that paradox notwithstanding, the implications are significant.

In the legal realm, Twitter, Facebook and the like are apt to face, and in fact are facing, serious anti-trust cases that may, in the fullness of time, lead to their being broken up. To be sure, as private companies they have the authority to determine what and what does not get placed on their sites.

However, first, as they were originally to be platforms that carried a multiplicity of viewpoints, they were given certain legal exemptions. However, as the various bans seem to have taken on a specific ideological direction, the courts are apt to view their actions as collusion and thus in violation of anti-trust laws. This getting easier if, as seems possible, Congress revokes the exemptions from legal action that it granted these companies in the late 1990s.

(As an aside, this issue splits the Democratic party wide open. The likes of Senator Elizabeth Warren favoring the GOP position, ironically enough, of breaking "big tech" companies up. While the mainline Democrats - now the party of big business - wants to continue to afford "big tech" various legal and regulatory protections.)

However, it is at the cultural level that things turn especially bitter. The effort by "Big Tech" to ban President Trump and conservative sites like Parler may be based on their assessment of the political dynamics, but it feeds the populist narrative that big business is trying to impose its will on the public.

This is fueling massive social tensions that will result in more violence. Moreover, driving populist and conservative populist tendencies underground and pushing them toward greater extremism. This can only end badly and in the short term was made worse when it came out that most of the planning for the recent riots on Capitol Hill were facilitated not by Parler, but Facebook.

Put it all together and in cultural terms, Facebook and Twitter are, intentionally or not, driving the cultural dialogue to greater extremes and the price for that is likely to be more tumult. Not least as social media has the tendency to place people in their own mental universe.

To be sure the United States has endured periods of violence and social upheaval before. The current period bearing a startling resemblance to the mayhem of the 1960s and 70s. (Fun fact, from January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1969, there were over 8000 domestic bombings, albeit most were small scale. Suffice to say, as that fact demonstrates, the nation has been here before.)

CONT.

nightdrot

4 d
Yet the difference between the current era and the past was that, in the 60s and 70s, there were a limited number of media outlets. This having the effect of causing people to view the universe more or less through the same psychological and cultural prism. Not to mention making the banning of certain viewpoints less likely since each media outlet did not want to lose audience to its' competitors.

To be sure, of Mr. Trump, it has been well said - as was said of Kaiser Wilhelm II - that he is "prone to confident statements of boundless banality, misjudged interviews and tin-eared speeches." He then strenuously objects and bellows that it is a crime against the ages when someone has the effrontery to point out his errors and nurses grievances that people are being mean and unfair to him.

However, given the nature of social media technology, those considerations are in abeyance and this, in turn, feeds a deep social resentment and distrust. In that, whatever the purity of its' motives, social media - Twitter, Facebook, Google and all the rest - are playing with fire, and there is nothing there to tamp down the flames.

Answer 2

nightdrot

Yet the difference between the current era and the past was that, in the 60s and 70s, there were a limited number of media outlets. This having the effect of causing people to view the universe more or less through the same psychological and cultural prism. Not to mention making the banning of certain viewpoints less likely since each media outlet did not want to lose audience to its' competitors.

To be sure, of Mr. Trump, it has been well said - as was said of Kaiser Wilhelm II - that he is "prone to confident statements of boundless banality, misjudged interviews and tin-eared speeches." He then strenuously objects and bellows that it is a crime against the ages when someone has the effrontery to point out his errors and nurses grievances that people are being mean and unfair to him.

However, given the nature of social media technology, those considerations are in abeyance and this, in turn, feeds a deep social resentment and distrust. In that, whatever the purity of its' motives, social media - Twitter, Facebook, Google and all the rest - are playing with fire, and there is nothing there to tamp down the flames.

Answer 3

MCheetah | 496 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

I hate Twitter and think its useless, but no social media platform should have the right to dictate free speech, especially when they are clearly publishers (biased) and not platforms (unbiased).

Some idiots are trying to make the "they're a company, so they can do what they want" argument, not understanding this. It's essentially bigotry and platforms not being allowed to do this is the same reason Verizon can't deny you service because you're black or Apple can't deny selling you an iPhone because you're gay. As publishers, they have no legal protections, which means they can be sued for libel and slander (and rightfully should be), but as platforms, they are protected from all of that since "anyone can use them and they're free speech zones."

It's not so much about the First Amendment as it is about these social media apps being protected by law because they're *supposed* to be neutral platforms that allows everyone to have a voice the same way Apple allows anyone to buy an iPhone and use the iTunes store. The issue is the massive government corruption when everyone who isn't a complete idiot knows they have a massive bias against the political right and favor the political left. They are basically publishers who can legally act with bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and bias (in this case, political discrimination), which is *supposed* to be illegal and against the law.

Let's see how many mindless brainless sheep agree with what the media tells them... So far 29%. One female and six beta males. That's just sad at least 29% of people are this dumb.

Answer 4

AlienParasite | 333 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

I don't have a clear idea.

On one hand I believe you can't claim there's free speech if there are speeches that are forbidden. However is true there are speeches that invite to hate or violence. If be believe in free speech, we would have to trust people's critical sense and believe most people would despise incendiary ideologies. If we can't trust people, which is sad, free speech could be sacrificed in favor to safety.

Also I have this concept about private businesses, that they have the right to make their own rules and regulations, and deny service to those they don't want as customers. Even if social apps are so open it seems like a free service, they are still a private company's service. The only thing customers can do against it is to complain in such a way they cause a real pressure on the company - usually by methods that would effect negatively in the business' benefits so the company feels like the have to reconsider the way they rule and regulate. Either actions such as damaging the platform reputation through pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in how they inforce their rules unequally or basic option which is stop using their services.

Beign honest, I don't care if Trump keeps banned or is unbanned. I neither care if Twitter works well or the platform dies.

Answer 5

angelgirl7 | 94 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

It's a little too late in my opinion.
First of all, I'm not a big Trump fan so this is not coming from the place of a Trump supporter. But I don't feel like he was ever given a fair chance. As soon as he was elected they were trying to impeach him. This social media ban just feels like a personal attack on him and a distraction from the real issues (Insert the clip of Kourtney Kardashian saying "Kim, there's people that are dying").
Of all the troublesome things he's said/posted throughout the years, what exactly did he say this time that was the final straw?
It definitely felt like this was a bias decision. People were criticizing Twitter for not doing it so they finally caved, and then other social media companies followed suit to save face.
I've seen far worse things posted on social media throughout the years and absolutely nothing was done. Not that citizens should be held to the same standard as the president but if you're going to cite your rules for the reason for banning him, then you better make them universal and start holding everybody (regardless of their status) accountable.

Answer 6

BCA6010 | 2.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Having actually read the speech in full, no I do not agree with Twitter (or any other organization) and their decision. At best, they jumped the gun without knowing the facts, at worst they had much more malicious motivations. Now of course those idiots had to wait until after the impeachment hearings to announce it, but the FBI has determined Trump's speech and rally had nothing to do with the capitol riots.

This goes before taking into account the hypocrisy of the entire scenario given what happened all throughout 2020 yet not one of those people, including elected officials in the house were banned for actively participating.

The bottom line is that this proves big tech has gotten way too big and needs to be forcibly broken down into bits. The reality is that a single social media company can flex more power and influence than the actual elected government. If not, then someday even the people who think big tech serves their interests are going to be in for a really rude awakening when they eventually get betrayed.

By the way this goes further than big tech now; even banking is jumping on the bandwagon.

Answer 7

Anonymous

This is a man who said he could have a gun and shoot someone and get away with it. This is a man who said he could ruin Canada when the NAFTA talks were being discussed. This is a man that divided America. This is a man that sucked the teet of Israel on matters such as Jerusalem when America has no right to be involved in the Middle East. This is a man that killed Iranian general Soleimani, a general and his military that stopped the US-backed and funded ISIS from entering Iran. This is a man who made fun of a man with a disability. This list goes on and on and on. See if I post this on twitter and my account was banned people would say YEAHHHHHH GOOOD HE DESERVES IT!! Y’all talk free speech but if I state the truth for something that you don’t agree that unanimously you will support something evil and stupid.

Oh by the way, I am not a democrat supporter, nor am I a republican supporter, nor am I communist or socialist. But for people saying he’s allowed to be hateful and push for violence than it’s clear to me many people in society especially in the US don’t seem to have values, morals or ethics. There are Christians who call themselves Trump supporters yet they hate other people. Jesus was not taught to hate, so I call those people fake Christians. I could care less if people give my comment a thumbs down or report it or flag it. It just goes to show the hypocrisy of what people on GAG or on social media will say and try to be clever trying to silence others.

Answer 8

lightbulb27 | 1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Don't think he did, don't think should be banned. Not sure about this "banning" becasue don't like what they say.

I listenened to his whole speech. What trump said was "audit the election system". I agree with that and agree with passing legeslation to ensure elections are accepted by both sides... he asked for that as well. Need to address root issues... audit the system so can be better trusted... or else this gets worse.

Replace twitter, FB with something else... a conservative version... that's what's coming. maybe even google.

Others on the left have incited and ignored the left's behavior. That's the diff I see.

Answer 9

Petermorgan34

Xper 2

I am a center st and try to be moderate in everything. So No, I think that it sets a dangerous precedent of protection of free speech. Twitter is a private company but the fact that they dont equally enforce the rules on leftist leaning bs vs rightist leaning bs is adding more fuel to rightist arguments of media and social media are biased twords leftism. Its important that everyones voice is heard no matter how right or wrong it may be as both views need to coexist and be heard in order to cause a more centerist and moderate view which to lead to a successful and prosperous future for all. becuase America is built on compromises

Answer 10

KrisKris81

Xper 5

Trump seems to not be aware of how powerful the president's voice is. Free speech is a fundamental principle of America, but at the same time if he won't at least consider the effects of what he is saying then please stop him from (intentionally or not) inciting further violence.

His "supporters" might continue their "support" after he leaves the white house. Plus, I don't think Trump will be able to let go of losing the election; now that he has been impeached twice and might lose his president's club benefits (with a, supposed, mountain of debt waiting for him) I think the last thing he should have is a podium like Twitter.

If his supporters didn't include groups like the proud boys (who openly walk around with assault rifles) I would be against a permanent ban

Answer 11

Anonymous

Trump has incited violence against the American people when he encouraged the mob to riot and become insurrectionists. Their intent was to keep the American people from having the peaceful transfer of power that they had voted for. That is plenty of reason to ban Trump from whatever. There is no right to incite violence and insurrection. Coup attempts are what used to happen in third world countries, until Trump came along. Now coup attempts are part of America, and unfortunately, will now always be more likely to happen in America.

Answer 12

AMonthOfAugust

Xper 2

It scares me how different women are to men on this one haha
Ladies, know that your men who are against speech regulations aren't just against it. They are terrified of it.

Twitter is a private company and has rights to do as they please to some extent but the American constitution states that a person has the right to free speech with some exceptions. Trump basically yelled fire in a burning building and should have a slap on the wrist. But general speech regulations should never be legal.

Answer 13

jshm2 | 1.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Break the rules enough times anywhere and you'll eventually get banned. Doesn't matter if it's a golf club or Twitter.

What Twitter and others have shown is, being POTUS isn't any sort of defense against the rules- which is a good thing.

Regarding others, doesn't matter if it's antivaxxers, racists or people you don't like. If they have not broken the ToS, then they are fine. What you are trying to encourage is censoring people because you want to, not because they have broken the rules.

Suraj1711

6 d
Are you accusing me of trying to censor people?

Answer 14

Suraj1711

Are you accusing me of trying to censor people?

Answer 15

wagsingle

Xper 5

The 1st amendment prohibits the government from limiting speech. Twitter is a private company, and the ban does not discriminate against a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The platform is international, so additional local and state protections don't apply. The local baker comparison is invalid because that local baker who refused to serve a gay couple did violate ant-discrimination laws, and local protections do apply since the reused sale was local. If Twitter were to start limiting Muslims, women, Arabs , etc they would be breaking the law and face prosecution. However, banns based on content are acceptable, and in the case of false statements and comments that encourage violence, bans are not just justified. They are a moral obligation.

Answer 16

BeenThereLovedIt | 345 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

Twitter was right to ban him. I read their full explanation on why his last two tweets were problematic, and agreed with their conclusion. They also had to consider their level of liability.

You wouldn't want a child molester inciting other child molesters to have the right to use twitter to incite their base and then rain down on playgrounds and 'take back' the children of america, right?

This is idiocy on an epic level.

Answer 17

OfDeath | 2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

It's hard for me to pick a side on this one because I am pro free speech. I'm not pro lies though. I think the footnotes under his tweets saying that reliable sources state otherwise were enough. So if pressed I have to say I'm against the decision to silence him.

Suraj1711

6 d
Yeah me too. Feel like it's way too polarizing for my mind to comprehend at the moment.

Answer 18

Suraj1711

Yeah me too. Feel like it's way too polarizing for my mind to comprehend at the moment.

Answer 19

CasaNorba | 627 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

fuck no!

Twitter is cancerous cesspool. if you ignore the news and actually study what really happened in Washington you will obviously conclude that it was not Trump's supporters that caused that warzone. it was obviously the ANTIFA losers pretending to be Trump supporters in order to justify his second impeachment and make sure he leaves for good on January 20. it can't all be a coincidence and I even have a leaked video of authorities escorting at least four buses filled with ANTIFA members in that area hours before the incident took place.

ironically what they did/doing to Trump is the epitome of fascism

Answer 20

Kabluie

Yoda

Once Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg pulled the plug on Trump it was all downhill from there. I tell people in this IT industry you don't want to get blackballed, we are all connected and it will spiral out of control and you'll only get to wallow in your own self-pity, which is what Trump is probably doing now.

Just like the "muh freedums" people who won't wear a mask at a store and have to get kick out because that doesn't apply on private property. This is the same on twitter, you don't have a right to incite harm or violence. Social networks also enjoy having the section 230 law in-place, and if they let people roam free unmoderated, congress would hasten to repeal the law.

Answer 21

seanras | 55 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 5

The whole point of free speech is ALLOW people to say things even if you disagree with them. Twitter isn't allowing free speech. And I see this self-righteous behavior from the left very often -- if it offends them, it's not free speech. We should create a world where we don't stifle opinions (even if those opinions are wrong). If Trump thinks the election was stolen, I disagree with him, but banning him is banning free speech.

Answer 22

jhnny1331

Xper 4

He's a grown fucking man in his 70s not a nine-year-old girl and a president for Good sake fucking act like one quit tweeting and twittering and that's the stupidest fucking thing ever saw in my life damn dude some of you people voted for this shit head fuck

Answer 23

Glue-Sniffer | 379 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Merkel can say whatever she wants. Meanwhile in Germany you cam get sued for calling someone stupid. Insulting is a punishable act by law in Germany. Speech is regulated as well. So before latching on to some news do your research.
Twitter is a private company. They can do whatever they want. No one is forced to use their product.

Answer 24

Deathraider | 1.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Twitter has the right to ban people if they want, just as you have the right to tell people to get out of your house if you don’t like what they’re saying.

The problem is that Twitter and other companies don’t have enough competition. Laws in the US have allow sites like Facebook, Twitter, or Google to become essentially monopolies. If there were competition, then Twitter would have to be more concerned about their users since their users could just leave them for another site.

Answer 25

Anonymous

Unlike in those countries, America's constitution clearly states that one person's rights can not impede upon another. Therefore hate speech and propaganda are not protected under the right to free speech because they impede on people right to safety and liberty under the 14th amendment.

Answer 26

Chris_u006

Xper 5

Hell no! Attacks against free speech is never okay! No matter who the president is, USA should either sue Alphabet, freeze their assets or something like that.
Any sign of dicatorship is a gigantic problem in so called Democracies.
And I don't believe they have any evidence against Trump at all.

Answer 27

Dweezil | 96 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 5

The DOJ and FTC need to be investigate all those social media outlets and see if they are practicing predatory forms of business.

The Apple store and Google play store has taken down Parler so the app cannot be downloaded.

Amazon which controls most of the world's servers has banned Parler from using their services.

All three companies need to be forced to stop using monopoly type practices.

Think back to the railroads and John Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

Answer 28

RolandCuthbert | 3.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

What do you mean by regulations? Complaining about trump being banned on twitter is like complaining about being banned from GaG. GaG decides what content can be posted on their platform. I have had posts removed. I have been warned about posts and I have not complained one single time.

I either comply with the rules here, or I get out.

Trump got banned for spreading a lie that lead to people being killed and he knew what he was doing.

Answer 29

Anonymous

no, but I'm laughing at Twitter losing their shit because Uganda banned THEM for the election period, after social media continued to take down campaign ads for the current leader. It's almost as if these tech companies are trying to interfere in elections or something. ;) Not sure how you can be called a "platform" when you actively seek out and ban people whose politics oppose the ones you support. A PLATFORM would allow for both sides to be heard. The world sees it now, and hopefully big tech gets bitch slapped sooner rather than later.

Answer 30

mistixs | 798 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

I only support banning someone if they literally, actually promote violence. I haven't seen Trump do that but I did see many leftists do that last year and they didn't get banned. I'm left-leaning and the hypocrisy coming from my side is just embarrassing.

Answer 31

michael1469 | 512 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

The only thing trump should have been doing telling people to get out and vote. ... and then he tries to restrict voting of those he wants to vote for him... fucking moron.

None the less you can't scream fire in a theater. You can't say OR imply that people need to riot because they aren't being heard. You vote for that!!

Answer 32

hellionthesagereborn | 2.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

No because I don't believe in censorship, especially a private company censoring the duly elected president of the united states. I also don't agree with it because he never explictily or implicitly incited violence. In fact his statement called for peacefully rallies which is the exact opposite of inciting violence.

linds34

4 d
I hadn't heard. Yeah anyone should get banned if they incited violence. I don't like rich people getting away with things I'd have to fire someone for doing.
hellionthesagereborn

4 d
@linds34 Yeah, because they won't tell you. I had to go through several sources before finding out what he actually said. It was nothing more then a political movtivated move. They have a messiah complex and think that their power and wealth will allow them to shape the world into something they want so they will continue to act with impunity. That is why half the world has called them out on it, because if they can censor the president of the united states for nothing, they can censor any one.

I personally am against censorship period, let them show what they really are in my opinion. That said, that is not an unreasonable policy to have, the problem is twitter banned trump for calling for a peaceful protest, but he allows Hezebolla, ISIS, Antifa, and many others who are active terrorist groups who call for violence regularly to do so. In fact the hashtag hangpence was trending when they decided they needed to ban trump, but not those using that hashtag. Like I said, its purely political on their part.
linds34

4 d
So there isn't really violence going on in DC? Trump lost, open your eyes.
Show All Show Less
hellionthesagereborn

4 d
@linds34 Open my eyes? At which point did I say their was no violence? Never. At which point did I say that trump did or did not lose? Never (I question the loss as we have ample evidence of fraud which we are not allowed to look into or have an audit (which would have told us who won immediately but for some reason democrats, in their absolute confidence in their victory openly refused to do and did everything in their power to not look into the extreme irregularities and in some cases literal video evidence of fraud (ballot harvesting and ballot stuffing for example).

Now what I do find interesting in your statement is that your talking about the capitol riots, but which ones? Are you mentioning the ones that happend two years ago that were done by leftists? Oh no, not those. What about the riots in the capitol that happened just a few months ago, which were done by leftists? Oh no, definitley not those. So which one? Oh yes, the one that just happened because you know, it was mostly conservatives there (though several antifa members have been proven to have been there and incited the riots (though that doesn't excuse the other people who willingly involved themselves in it). Funny how righteous the left is. . . . so long as they can blame the right for everything. Maybe try calling out the left who has been rioting for almost a decade now (antifa has been around for a long time), maybe call them out for their violence (like openly executing trump supporters and violently beating and attacking police and conservatives (but only if they are unarmed)), otherwise your just an ideolog and hypocrit. Consistentcy in values matter, if your not consistent with your application of them, you don't have values to begin with.
linds34

4 d
You're wasting your time on diatribes directed at me. You voted for the guy who lost, like it or not. He got banned from Twitter. Worship the actual God, not a politician who doesn't care about you.
hellionthesagereborn

4 d
@linds34 But the only one worshipping politicians is you? I don't worship him, in fact I have the capacity to criticise him when he has made mistakes, you on the other hand probably can't think of a single thing to criticise your ideological group over, obama, or biden over. Don't project onto me that which you do. Everything i have stated is accurate, everything I have stated is fair and reasonable (even criticised the violence at the capitol (which trump never incited, he called for peaceful protests which if you did your research you would know (instead of getting your information from headlines)).
linds34

4 d
You don't know me at all. I'm wondering why you can't stop talking about me. The Election happened in November and you don't even know who won, pick up a newspaper and see.
hellionthesagereborn

3 d
@linds34 I listen to over six different news sources ranging from the left to the right, libertarian to liberal. I listened to EVERY state hearing on the election, watched the video evidence presented, listened to testimonies of multiple whistleblowers, the sworn testimonies of those present, as well as the multiple forensic audits done and the statististicians who analyzed the data. What have you done to get your information? Read a headline, maybe a meme (because 70% of people don't read past the head line, out of those who do only about 50% of them read past the first parargraph.). I have been aware of what happened, I was aware that the media called the election for biden despite them not only not having the authority but doing so before all the results were in (we had multiple states that were not in, nor the military ballots (ironic as biden said every vote counts. . . . unless they are against him apparently or he thinks he has already won in which case we can call the election early), and we had contested states and lawsuits to deal with. We also know that certification was rushed (most of those states hadn't finished certifying until much later in the last election yet this one they couldn't certify fast enough even when in the midst of election fraud claims (ones backed by video evidence of ballot harvesting, ballot stuffing, destruction of ballots, etc.).

Between the two of us, I am far more informed then you are (in fact I'm probably the most well informed on this site when it comes to this). Their is nothing wrong with that, but don't act like you know what is going on if you cannot be bothered to do some research first, don't have such strong opinions on something that you would insult and belittle people for thinking differently then you, if you cannot be bothered to dedicate at least some time to investigating the claims made.
linds34

2 d
The courts read all the documents too and ruled against Trump. I don't know why you write these long diatribes about how you're a lot smarter than me. It seems like you are pretty smart but you're wasting your intelligence by reading propaganda.
hellionthesagereborn

2 d
@linds34 No they didn't. In order for them to read all the evidence, they have to actually be allowed to present their case and none of the judges allowed that (and the fact that many of them were anti trump has nothing to do with that I'm sure). Thats literally what a case is for, you don't present evidence proving something then get to go to court, by that point their would be no point going to court.

Multiple judges ruled that their was evidence of fraud but "not enough to over turn the election results", and yet they also wouldn't allow audits or investigations that would have proven whether or not that was the case. Out of all the lawsuits not a single one was thrown out on the merits. They were thrown out because they were filed "too late" or "too early" or because it wasn't within the jurisidction of district judges, it wasn't within the jurisdiction of supreme court judges, they were not the agrieved party and thus had no standing etc. But not a single one was thrown out because their was no evidence and that is a provable fact.

I have not read propaganda but you have. What I have read is multiple news outlets both within america and outside of it , ranging from the staunchly right to the staunchly left (over six different news outlets ranging in political affiliation) as well as listened to EVERY ONE OF THE SENATE HEARINGS, the testimonies of multiple whistleblowers, of the 138 sworn testiminoies and even more eye witness accounts, the forensic specialists who pointed out extreme irregularites that are not explainable except by either mass incompetence or intentional fraud, the statiticians who pointe out that these statistical anomalies are not explainable by anything other then by either fraud or biden having so much luck that its like winning the lottery 150 times in a row (statistically unlikely).
hellionthesagereborn

2 d
@linds34 I've watched the videos of ballots being illegally harvested and bought, ballots being stuffed, people being bribed to vote, of the illegal transportation of ballots across state lines by a non sanctioned carrier (both illegal), the testimony of another who did this, the videos of republican ballot watchers being openly barred from observing the ballots, and of video evidence of ballots being destroyed illegally.

The issue isn't that all of this didn't happen, it did, we know it did, and that is simply reality. The issue is we have not been allowed to have this be presented in court, in front of a jury, to be judged upon as is legally required to be done (if you allege that their was a murder, even if no one believes you, the police are legally obligated to investigate, we have hundreds upon hundreds of people alleging fraud, video evidence of it and data anomalies that are consistent with the claims and video evidence and no one allowed us to go to court to determine what happened. That is a huge issue).
hellionthesagereborn

2 d
@linds34 I have not consumed propaganda but you have, you can tell you have because your so angry about my statements, so convinced I am wrong, yet you have not spent any time doing research. Who feels that strongly about something they cannot be cared to investigate themselves except for those who have been brainwashed? Thats not an insult or an attack, just a statement of fact. Its like me getting this angry about baseball, if I don't watch it, why would I get this invested and angry at some one for disagreeing unless I have been indoctrinated into thinking that way? You've been told for decades that conservatives are evil, you have been raised in schools to believe it, the media says it, the very media in fact who called the election for Trump as being illegitamate when it provably wasn't and they did so without evidence now turn around and are claming this election was won by biden, before all states had even counted their votes, the lawsuits settled and the recounts done, are now telling you we are all evil and racist and bad for questioning their narrative. Of course you think the way you do because you've never stepped outside of that echo chamber. These are the same people who have had to settle lawsuits for lying, issue retractions for lying but your going to trust their headlines (because again, this isn't important enough for you to do your research on (I'm not saying spend the five to eight hours a day on it like I have but even a half hour a day would go a long way)), to see what the other side is arguing and what their evidence is? What is that if not succumbing to propaganda?
hellionthesagereborn

2 d
@linds34 I'm not demanding you believe me (If you were to simply agree that its weird and we should investigate it but you believe biden still won, fine, that is something I disagree with but still find to be reasonable), the only thing I demand is that if you feel strongly about something, do your research first, study it intensively then come to your conclusion after reviewing the arguments from both sides and the evidence presented by both sides (which you have not done, but am challenging you to do). All I am demanding is that you treat those you disagree with like they are human beings (which conservatives are not being treated as, in the media and by the left who claim to be so tolerant yet wish death upon those they disagree with (and endorse violence against them) AOC and multiple others have called for us to be put on lists, to be punished for voting for trump, for disagreeing with the left (they have introduced bills to try and remove republicans who legally objected to the results and wanted to have the evidence heard out before the counts were submitted (all of which is legal)). That's it. If you stop seeing conservatives and those you disagree with as inhuman things, and start doing research and listening to both sides, you will not only become a more informed person, but a wiser and more well rounded one (and a free thinking one as well).
hellionthesagereborn

2 d
@linds34 Here is an excercise, tell me something good republicans have done and something bad democrats have done, something good that Trump has done and something bad biden/Obama has done. If you can't do that, your listening to propaganda (because no one is that one sided to be perfectly good or perfectly evil). Name one policy of Trumps you liked, one you dislike, and do the same for biden or Obama. If you can't do that, your not informed and your being lead along by propaganda.
linds34

2 d
Ok man, I don't know why you spend all your time on diatribes against me.

Things good the Republicans did: Nixon started the EPA.
Things bad the Democrats did: They didn't go far enough on Obamacare, should have been single payer.
I'm ignoring all the personal attacks because I still think you don't know me? You seriously should write for a living instead of writing term paper length things attacking me?
hellionthesagereborn

4 h
@linds34 This is literally how I write to everyone. Look at my history and you will see that this is not unique to you. (If I knew a way to be more concise I would do so, but I don't. I even text like this.).

I didn't ask you good things nixon did, I said trump. Your bad things for Obama/democrats isn't a bad thing, it was an argument that they didn't try harder, not an argument against an ideological belief i. e. you agree with their financial policy but do you agree with abortion, or the promise of democrats to give illegal aliens free healthcare or what have you? However I was sticking to individuals to make a point, and you didn't answer the question.

You see conservatives as evil, trump as evil, and that is absurd. I'm trying to get you to realize that because its really important that we overcome this dehumanization that the left has done to the right, in order to have a productive discussion (and yes this is one sided, studies have shown that while republicans can empathize with democrat positions, democrats cannot empathize with a republican position. You demonize them because it means you don't have to engage with them, you don't have to try and understand them and in turn you don't have to question yourself or your beliefs).
hellionthesagereborn

4 h
@linds34 As for why I'm doing this, its important but also I don't know what else to do because listing off statistical data, linking to studies, showing video evidence has done absolutely nothing to get through to anyone. This year we saw the media say we had mostly peaceful riots from the left as the police precinct burn to the ground behind the newscaster. We had them state, and this is a direct quote, "a fiery but mostly peaceful protest" in another city during the riots. This is insanity but I don't know how to reach you or anyone else. I'm trying to get you to see me and others as human beings but its not working so the only thing I know to do is get you to start asking questions so you can see the inconsistencies in your world view. Rules are applied to the right that you absolve the left of, you claim the right believes x but you cannot be bothered to ask them if they actually believe that, you won't even hear them out when they tell you that is not what they believe.
hellionthesagereborn

4 h
@linds34 I mean a conservative states they are against welfare because it doesn't work, the government takes 70% of that money that hurts every one to pay off a small minority of people so we should get rid of it and take personal responsibility for helping our fellow man, for helping our communities and the left sees that as conservatives hating the poor. I mean what am I to do to get you to not do that? What other options are available to us to try and restore some kind of dialogue between the political factions? Serious question because thus far the left has suggested we be put onto lists and punished (AOC), that we should be removed from polite society and barred from gainful employment (the media and journalists), we have claims that Trump incited violence for asking people to stage a "PEACEFUL RALLY AND SUPPORT YOUR POLITICIANS" which is the literal exact opposite of inciting violence, we have the media saying we need to get rid of all independent journalists because they are just too conservative and we all need to be ideologically the same, we have Antifa beating and killing conservatives regularly (been happening for at least twelve years now but has ramped up in the past four), we have the politicians egging this on (you can look at videos of it on youtube right now), and being told that our children should be taken from us and put into "enlightenment camps"(PBS executive), and yet I have people like yourself (not in these exact words, but the sentiment is there) telling me that I am a far right extremist for believing that you should be allowed to live your life as you see fit and so should I.
hellionthesagereborn

4 h
@linds34 So what can I do, to establish a dialogue so that you/the left can see that every one on the right isn't worthless and stupid and evil and undeserving of life? What can I do to get you to see us as human beings? To acknoweldge that maybe your not perfect in all ways and you could even be wrong about things (because while you will sit here and acknowledge (with great ire) that you never believed you were perfect, your rhetoric and the rhetoric of the left says otherwise. If you think that everything some one on the other side is wrong, you are by extension saying that you are right about everything. You are not considering the possibility that you could be wrong and that is why we cannot have a productive dialogue (along side the left not seeing anyone who disagrees with them as human beings).

So again, what would you have me do?

Answer 33

linds34

I hadn't heard. Yeah anyone should get banned if they incited violence. I don't like rich people getting away with things I'd have to fire someone for doing.

Answer 34

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 Yeah, because they won't tell you. I had to go through several sources before finding out what he actually said. It was nothing more then a political movtivated move. They have a messiah complex and think that their power and wealth will allow them to shape the world into something they want so they will continue to act with impunity. That is why half the world has called them out on it, because if they can censor the president of the united states for nothing, they can censor any one.

I personally am against censorship period, let them show what they really are in my opinion. That said, that is not an unreasonable policy to have, the problem is twitter banned trump for calling for a peaceful protest, but he allows Hezebolla, ISIS, Antifa, and many others who are active terrorist groups who call for violence regularly to do so. In fact the hashtag hangpence was trending when they decided they needed to ban trump, but not those using that hashtag. Like I said, its purely political on their part.

Answer 35

linds34

So there isn't really violence going on in DC? Trump lost, open your eyes.

Answer 36

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 Open my eyes? At which point did I say their was no violence? Never. At which point did I say that trump did or did not lose? Never (I question the loss as we have ample evidence of fraud which we are not allowed to look into or have an audit (which would have told us who won immediately but for some reason democrats, in their absolute confidence in their victory openly refused to do and did everything in their power to not look into the extreme irregularities and in some cases literal video evidence of fraud (ballot harvesting and ballot stuffing for example).

Now what I do find interesting in your statement is that your talking about the capitol riots, but which ones? Are you mentioning the ones that happend two years ago that were done by leftists? Oh no, not those. What about the riots in the capitol that happened just a few months ago, which were done by leftists? Oh no, definitley not those. So which one? Oh yes, the one that just happened because you know, it was mostly conservatives there (though several antifa members have been proven to have been there and incited the riots (though that doesn't excuse the other people who willingly involved themselves in it). Funny how righteous the left is. . . . so long as they can blame the right for everything. Maybe try calling out the left who has been rioting for almost a decade now (antifa has been around for a long time), maybe call them out for their violence (like openly executing trump supporters and violently beating and attacking police and conservatives (but only if they are unarmed)), otherwise your just an ideolog and hypocrit. Consistentcy in values matter, if your not consistent with your application of them, you don't have values to begin with.

Answer 37

linds34

You're wasting your time on diatribes directed at me. You voted for the guy who lost, like it or not. He got banned from Twitter. Worship the actual God, not a politician who doesn't care about you.

Answer 38

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 But the only one worshipping politicians is you? I don't worship him, in fact I have the capacity to criticise him when he has made mistakes, you on the other hand probably can't think of a single thing to criticise your ideological group over, obama, or biden over. Don't project onto me that which you do. Everything i have stated is accurate, everything I have stated is fair and reasonable (even criticised the violence at the capitol (which trump never incited, he called for peaceful protests which if you did your research you would know (instead of getting your information from headlines)).

Answer 39

linds34

You don't know me at all. I'm wondering why you can't stop talking about me. The Election happened in November and you don't even know who won, pick up a newspaper and see.

Answer 40

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 I listen to over six different news sources ranging from the left to the right, libertarian to liberal. I listened to EVERY state hearing on the election, watched the video evidence presented, listened to testimonies of multiple whistleblowers, the sworn testimonies of those present, as well as the multiple forensic audits done and the statististicians who analyzed the data. What have you done to get your information? Read a headline, maybe a meme (because 70% of people don't read past the head line, out of those who do only about 50% of them read past the first parargraph.). I have been aware of what happened, I was aware that the media called the election for biden despite them not only not having the authority but doing so before all the results were in (we had multiple states that were not in, nor the military ballots (ironic as biden said every vote counts. . . . unless they are against him apparently or he thinks he has already won in which case we can call the election early), and we had contested states and lawsuits to deal with. We also know that certification was rushed (most of those states hadn't finished certifying until much later in the last election yet this one they couldn't certify fast enough even when in the midst of election fraud claims (ones backed by video evidence of ballot harvesting, ballot stuffing, destruction of ballots, etc.).

Between the two of us, I am far more informed then you are (in fact I'm probably the most well informed on this site when it comes to this). Their is nothing wrong with that, but don't act like you know what is going on if you cannot be bothered to do some research first, don't have such strong opinions on something that you would insult and belittle people for thinking differently then you, if you cannot be bothered to dedicate at least some time to investigating the claims made.

Answer 41

linds34

The courts read all the documents too and ruled against Trump. I don't know why you write these long diatribes about how you're a lot smarter than me. It seems like you are pretty smart but you're wasting your intelligence by reading propaganda.

Answer 42

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 No they didn't. In order for them to read all the evidence, they have to actually be allowed to present their case and none of the judges allowed that (and the fact that many of them were anti trump has nothing to do with that I'm sure). Thats literally what a case is for, you don't present evidence proving something then get to go to court, by that point their would be no point going to court.

Multiple judges ruled that their was evidence of fraud but "not enough to over turn the election results", and yet they also wouldn't allow audits or investigations that would have proven whether or not that was the case. Out of all the lawsuits not a single one was thrown out on the merits. They were thrown out because they were filed "too late" or "too early" or because it wasn't within the jurisidction of district judges, it wasn't within the jurisdiction of supreme court judges, they were not the agrieved party and thus had no standing etc. But not a single one was thrown out because their was no evidence and that is a provable fact.

I have not read propaganda but you have. What I have read is multiple news outlets both within america and outside of it , ranging from the staunchly right to the staunchly left (over six different news outlets ranging in political affiliation) as well as listened to EVERY ONE OF THE SENATE HEARINGS, the testimonies of multiple whistleblowers, of the 138 sworn testiminoies and even more eye witness accounts, the forensic specialists who pointed out extreme irregularites that are not explainable except by either mass incompetence or intentional fraud, the statiticians who pointe out that these statistical anomalies are not explainable by anything other then by either fraud or biden having so much luck that its like winning the lottery 150 times in a row (statistically unlikely).

Answer 43

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 I've watched the videos of ballots being illegally harvested and bought, ballots being stuffed, people being bribed to vote, of the illegal transportation of ballots across state lines by a non sanctioned carrier (both illegal), the testimony of another who did this, the videos of republican ballot watchers being openly barred from observing the ballots, and of video evidence of ballots being destroyed illegally.

The issue isn't that all of this didn't happen, it did, we know it did, and that is simply reality. The issue is we have not been allowed to have this be presented in court, in front of a jury, to be judged upon as is legally required to be done (if you allege that their was a murder, even if no one believes you, the police are legally obligated to investigate, we have hundreds upon hundreds of people alleging fraud, video evidence of it and data anomalies that are consistent with the claims and video evidence and no one allowed us to go to court to determine what happened. That is a huge issue).

Answer 44

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 I have not consumed propaganda but you have, you can tell you have because your so angry about my statements, so convinced I am wrong, yet you have not spent any time doing research. Who feels that strongly about something they cannot be cared to investigate themselves except for those who have been brainwashed? Thats not an insult or an attack, just a statement of fact. Its like me getting this angry about baseball, if I don't watch it, why would I get this invested and angry at some one for disagreeing unless I have been indoctrinated into thinking that way? You've been told for decades that conservatives are evil, you have been raised in schools to believe it, the media says it, the very media in fact who called the election for Trump as being illegitamate when it provably wasn't and they did so without evidence now turn around and are claming this election was won by biden, before all states had even counted their votes, the lawsuits settled and the recounts done, are now telling you we are all evil and racist and bad for questioning their narrative. Of course you think the way you do because you've never stepped outside of that echo chamber. These are the same people who have had to settle lawsuits for lying, issue retractions for lying but your going to trust their headlines (because again, this isn't important enough for you to do your research on (I'm not saying spend the five to eight hours a day on it like I have but even a half hour a day would go a long way)), to see what the other side is arguing and what their evidence is? What is that if not succumbing to propaganda?

Answer 45

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 I'm not demanding you believe me (If you were to simply agree that its weird and we should investigate it but you believe biden still won, fine, that is something I disagree with but still find to be reasonable), the only thing I demand is that if you feel strongly about something, do your research first, study it intensively then come to your conclusion after reviewing the arguments from both sides and the evidence presented by both sides (which you have not done, but am challenging you to do). All I am demanding is that you treat those you disagree with like they are human beings (which conservatives are not being treated as, in the media and by the left who claim to be so tolerant yet wish death upon those they disagree with (and endorse violence against them) AOC and multiple others have called for us to be put on lists, to be punished for voting for trump, for disagreeing with the left (they have introduced bills to try and remove republicans who legally objected to the results and wanted to have the evidence heard out before the counts were submitted (all of which is legal)). That's it. If you stop seeing conservatives and those you disagree with as inhuman things, and start doing research and listening to both sides, you will not only become a more informed person, but a wiser and more well rounded one (and a free thinking one as well).

Answer 46

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 Here is an excercise, tell me something good republicans have done and something bad democrats have done, something good that Trump has done and something bad biden/Obama has done. If you can't do that, your listening to propaganda (because no one is that one sided to be perfectly good or perfectly evil). Name one policy of Trumps you liked, one you dislike, and do the same for biden or Obama. If you can't do that, your not informed and your being lead along by propaganda.

Answer 47

linds34

Ok man, I don't know why you spend all your time on diatribes against me.

Things good the Republicans did: Nixon started the EPA.
Things bad the Democrats did: They didn't go far enough on Obamacare, should have been single payer.
I'm ignoring all the personal attacks because I still think you don't know me? You seriously should write for a living instead of writing term paper length things attacking me?

Answer 48

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 This is literally how I write to everyone. Look at my history and you will see that this is not unique to you. (If I knew a way to be more concise I would do so, but I don't. I even text like this.).

I didn't ask you good things nixon did, I said trump. Your bad things for Obama/democrats isn't a bad thing, it was an argument that they didn't try harder, not an argument against an ideological belief i. e. you agree with their financial policy but do you agree with abortion, or the promise of democrats to give illegal aliens free healthcare or what have you? However I was sticking to individuals to make a point, and you didn't answer the question.

You see conservatives as evil, trump as evil, and that is absurd. I'm trying to get you to realize that because its really important that we overcome this dehumanization that the left has done to the right, in order to have a productive discussion (and yes this is one sided, studies have shown that while republicans can empathize with democrat positions, democrats cannot empathize with a republican position. You demonize them because it means you don't have to engage with them, you don't have to try and understand them and in turn you don't have to question yourself or your beliefs).

Answer 49

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 As for why I'm doing this, its important but also I don't know what else to do because listing off statistical data, linking to studies, showing video evidence has done absolutely nothing to get through to anyone. This year we saw the media say we had mostly peaceful riots from the left as the police precinct burn to the ground behind the newscaster. We had them state, and this is a direct quote, "a fiery but mostly peaceful protest" in another city during the riots. This is insanity but I don't know how to reach you or anyone else. I'm trying to get you to see me and others as human beings but its not working so the only thing I know to do is get you to start asking questions so you can see the inconsistencies in your world view. Rules are applied to the right that you absolve the left of, you claim the right believes x but you cannot be bothered to ask them if they actually believe that, you won't even hear them out when they tell you that is not what they believe.

Answer 50

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 I mean a conservative states they are against welfare because it doesn't work, the government takes 70% of that money that hurts every one to pay off a small minority of people so we should get rid of it and take personal responsibility for helping our fellow man, for helping our communities and the left sees that as conservatives hating the poor. I mean what am I to do to get you to not do that? What other options are available to us to try and restore some kind of dialogue between the political factions? Serious question because thus far the left has suggested we be put onto lists and punished (AOC), that we should be removed from polite society and barred from gainful employment (the media and journalists), we have claims that Trump incited violence for asking people to stage a "PEACEFUL RALLY AND SUPPORT YOUR POLITICIANS" which is the literal exact opposite of inciting violence, we have the media saying we need to get rid of all independent journalists because they are just too conservative and we all need to be ideologically the same, we have Antifa beating and killing conservatives regularly (been happening for at least twelve years now but has ramped up in the past four), we have the politicians egging this on (you can look at videos of it on youtube right now), and being told that our children should be taken from us and put into "enlightenment camps"(PBS executive), and yet I have people like yourself (not in these exact words, but the sentiment is there) telling me that I am a far right extremist for believing that you should be allowed to live your life as you see fit and so should I.

Answer 51

hellionthesagereborn

@linds34 So what can I do, to establish a dialogue so that you/the left can see that every one on the right isn't worthless and stupid and evil and undeserving of life? What can I do to get you to see us as human beings? To acknoweldge that maybe your not perfect in all ways and you could even be wrong about things (because while you will sit here and acknowledge (with great ire) that you never believed you were perfect, your rhetoric and the rhetoric of the left says otherwise. If you think that everything some one on the other side is wrong, you are by extension saying that you are right about everything. You are not considering the possibility that you could be wrong and that is why we cannot have a productive dialogue (along side the left not seeing anyone who disagrees with them as human beings).

So again, what would you have me do?

Answer 52

Catlover1999 | 83 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 6

All it’ll do is fuel the radical supporters (to be clear I’m not saying al, his supporters are, I to support him on some things) with rage and will make America more divided than it already is.

Answer 53

kawaiiguineapig

Xper 6

Do y’all realize that twitter is a privately owned company that can ban whatever it wants for ANY reason? you’re not being censored by the government just because Donald Trump is a dumbass. go cry about it

Dweezil

5 d
It is a privately owned company.

Let me ask you this.

If a baker or florist refuse service for a gay wedding do to their religious beliefs does the same concept apply?
Dweezil

5 d
I'm sure I already know your thoughts on my comment. Prove that I don't.
disgustingweebtrash

5 d
The thing is though with a baker or florist there's way more competition (albeit during covid, probably not.) but with twitter your alternative is social media sites they are unionised with.

Big tech bootlickers make me pretty sick, big tech is too large to pass under the umbrella of a private entity, they must be reigned in.
Show All Show Less
wagsingle

4 d
@Dweezil Now your talking discrimination based on sexual orientation. That's different. If Twitter banned people based on discrimination under a protected class under law, they would get charged with discrimination. Banning someone for constant lies is not unlawful discrimination.
Inbox

3 d
@Dweezil You a lawyer bro? I read that case last semester in Con law.
Hypnos0929

3 d
@Dweezil
Religious reasons are not the same as restricting someone from using your platform AFTER they violated your terms and conditions numerous times.
The equivalent you're looking for is "Should a shop owner be able to kick you out for loudly yelling at other customers and trying to instigate fights"

Answer 54

Dweezil

It is a privately owned company.

Let me ask you this.

If a baker or florist refuse service for a gay wedding do to their religious beliefs does the same concept apply?

Answer 55

Dweezil

I'm sure I already know your thoughts on my comment. Prove that I don't.

Answer 56

disgustingweebtrash

The thing is though with a baker or florist there's way more competition (albeit during covid, probably not.) but with twitter your alternative is social media sites they are unionised with.

Big tech bootlickers make me pretty sick, big tech is too large to pass under the umbrella of a private entity, they must be reigned in.

Answer 57

wagsingle

@Dweezil Now your talking discrimination based on sexual orientation. That's different. If Twitter banned people based on discrimination under a protected class under law, they would get charged with discrimination. Banning someone for constant lies is not unlawful discrimination.

Answer 58

Inbox

@Dweezil You a lawyer bro? I read that case last semester in Con law.

Answer 59

Hypnos0929

@Dweezil
Religious reasons are not the same as restricting someone from using your platform AFTER they violated your terms and conditions numerous times.
The equivalent you're looking for is "Should a shop owner be able to kick you out for loudly yelling at other customers and trying to instigate fights"

Answer 60

SlightlyEccentric

Xper 4

The fact they let the Ayatollah still tweet (whose regime has threatened the US multiple times) is all the proof anyone needs on where silicon valley stands in politics

Answer 61

Anonymous

Like trump said. He could go out and kill a guy. And he wouldn’t lose any votes. Same principle now. He could get his own supporters killed. And he still wouldn’t lose supporters. America hates black people and immigrants in general. They need a leader to represent their ideas. Trump is perfect. This is reality. They want to go back to slavery but they won’t outright say it. Welcome to the land of the free!

Answer 62

Tyrael | 222 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies who enforce their own rules, some idiots aren't understanding that. If people would stop screeching about it, that would be great. The guy is a problem who needs to go.

JesterRose

6 d
The issue is Twitter as a platform. As a platform they are protected by article 230. But twitter bans and removes people they dont like for the same ToS violations as those they do like. Thats editorializing, and would make them a publisher. Outside of article 230s protection.

Answer 63

JesterRose

The issue is Twitter as a platform. As a platform they are protected by article 230. But twitter bans and removes people they dont like for the same ToS violations as those they do like. Thats editorializing, and would make them a publisher. Outside of article 230s protection.

Answer 64

Anonymous

Of course fascists are going to complain when someone takes their megaphone away.

Normal people don't care and won't complain about this because normal people can follow twitters very reasonable terms of service.

Answer 65

slatyb | 1.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Not sure what you mean by "speech regulations". Twitter can allow or disallow whatever they like. Don't like it, don't use Twitter.

Suraj1711

5 d
Like in a few countries like in the UK where law enforcement are arresting the public for online speech.
slatyb

5 d
You can be prosecuted in the US for threatening violence online.
Suraj1711

4 d
Yeah but a lot of people were criticizing because it wasn't very consistent with their bans like the Disney producer who tweeted to put kids wearing maga hats in a meat grinder or something. Didn't suffer any consequences whatsoever which I can definitely understand.
Show All Show Less
slatyb

4 d
I'm generally opposed to speech regulations as In the UKbut I have not read the law. . Not sure about German regulations banning advocacy of Nazism or holocaust denial. Those dont bother me as much.

Answer 66

Suraj1711

Like in a few countries like in the UK where law enforcement are arresting the public for online speech.

Answer 67

slatyb

You can be prosecuted in the US for threatening violence online.

Answer 68

Suraj1711

Yeah but a lot of people were criticizing because it wasn't very consistent with their bans like the Disney producer who tweeted to put kids wearing maga hats in a meat grinder or something. Didn't suffer any consequences whatsoever which I can definitely understand.

Answer 69

slatyb

I'm generally opposed to speech regulations as In the UKbut I have not read the law. . Not sure about German regulations banning advocacy of Nazism or holocaust denial. Those dont bother me as much.

Answer 70

genericname85 | 2.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

i strongly disagree with that. 1: he was not inciting violence. if he did, quote the exact tweet where he did incite violence.

also on a more general note: big tech has just silence a sitting president of the united states. should they have the right to do that? i don't think so. i think the presidents power should not be overpowered by some private company...

Answer 71

Cherokeehp | 623 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Twitter is a business and they can choose to refuse service to people. Donald Trump still has free speech. He can say whatever he wants, twitter (and a variety of other apps) is just no longer providing a platform for him to broadcast his message.

Sabretooth

3 d
something republicans actually fought for.
Cherokeehp

3 d
@Sabretooth lol exactly. They weren’t complaining when bakeries were refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples.
Sabretooth

3 d
i agree that bakers should have that right-but now, it's THEM.
Show All Show Less
Cherokeehp

3 d
@Sabretooth I agree that businesses should have the right to refuse service. They just want to pick and choose when the rules should apply to benefit themselves.
Sabretooth

3 d
they also hate reality.

Answer 72

Sabretooth

something republicans actually fought for.

Answer 73

Cherokeehp

@Sabretooth lol exactly. They weren’t complaining when bakeries were refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples.

Answer 74

Sabretooth

i agree that bakers should have that right-but now, it's THEM.

Answer 75

Cherokeehp

@Sabretooth I agree that businesses should have the right to refuse service. They just want to pick and choose when the rules should apply to benefit themselves.

Answer 76

Sabretooth

they also hate reality.

Answer 77

joeldalton | 2.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

He crossed the line when he said “there needs to be unrest in the streets”, and when he said “protesters should not let up”, also when he said “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be”

SlightlyEccentric

6 d
So I guess you also think that Kamala Harris' support for the antifa riots should disqualify her as VP?
joeldalton

6 d
@SlightlyEccentric (my quotes are democrat statements during BLM riots)

Answer 78

SlightlyEccentric

So I guess you also think that Kamala Harris' support for the antifa riots should disqualify her as VP?

Answer 79

joeldalton

@SlightlyEccentric (my quotes are democrat statements during BLM riots)

Answer 80

Anonymous

We have freedom of speech but it doesn't mean we can say anything we want. For example, we can't say we're going to kill a sitting president. People get banned from social media websites for violating their rules all the time. Trump violated Twitter's rules.

Answer 81

Uptowngirl88

Xper 5

No, I don't agree with it.. In my opinion the riots aren't his fault.. These grown ass adults need to be responsible for their own actions.. if you're 30 influenced by his words so you go bombard the capitol then you've got serious mental problems.
Hold the adults who did this crap accountable.. I've gotten to the point im not liberal nor conservative they both have been acting like retards lately

Answer 82

Guanfei | 1.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

I don't support it, because, as I said, that's giving private companies the power to dictate who can and can't speak. Companies so powerful that they can decide to ban any competitor. And since most companies in that field also share the same political views, that would also be nothing more than propaganda.

Answer 83

Dargil | 963 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Nobody should regulate free speech short of yelling "fire" in a theater when there isn't one.

Hypnos0929

3 d
So you believe if a person walked into a restaurant, started instigating fights then got kicked out it would be the restaurant staff who is in the wrong?
The fact is if Trump weren't the POTUS he'd have been kicked sooner.
Dargil

3 d
@Hypnos0929 The first intentionally harms others, like yelling "fire" in a theater. So no.
Convince me why your second statement has merit at all.

Answer 84

Hypnos0929

So you believe if a person walked into a restaurant, started instigating fights then got kicked out it would be the restaurant staff who is in the wrong?
The fact is if Trump weren't the POTUS he'd have been kicked sooner.

Answer 85

Dargil

@Hypnos0929 The first intentionally harms others, like yelling "fire" in a theater. So no.
Convince me why your second statement has merit at all.

Answer 86

CubsterShura | 986 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Temporary ban just because of the riots is kind of understandable but I don't agree with the permanent ban, it's too much.

Chris_u006

4 d
Not even in pure war. No matter what, he was still the president when he got banned.
Alphabet owned social media platforms is just doing this trying to clean their own involvement in deep corruption. Don't forget It's Big Tech, Big Finance and Big Pharma who truly rule the world, any other so called people elected person is nothing more than their puppet
wagsingle

4 d
Inciting an insurrection that resulted in 5 deaths, and undermining democracy with lies requires a stronger response than that.

Answer 87

Chris_u006

Not even in pure war. No matter what, he was still the president when he got banned.
Alphabet owned social media platforms is just doing this trying to clean their own involvement in deep corruption. Don't forget It's Big Tech, Big Finance and Big Pharma who truly rule the world, any other so called people elected person is nothing more than their puppet

Answer 88

wagsingle

Inciting an insurrection that resulted in 5 deaths, and undermining democracy with lies requires a stronger response than that.

Answer 89

snowboarder720 | 422 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

All the social media platforms have every right to ban whomever they want for any reason. It’s their platform and their rules.
Same reason if I piss off a home owner in their house they have every right to kick me out.

Answer 90

hellacray | 1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

What tweets did he post that got him booted? The ones that I saw didn't seem like they incited violence.

Answer 91

ChefPapiChulo | 391 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

That’s a lot of information and not a very convincing argument. Social media is a private company. No one has to use sites like those. I don’t use sites like that.

ChefPapiChulo

6 d
Except for GaV
ChefPapiChulo

6 d
GaG.

Answer 92

ChefPapiChulo

Except for GaV

Answer 93

ChefPapiChulo

GaG.

Answer 94

andreasderjuengere | 2.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

No one needs a thing like twitter anyway.
I see no harm done.

Answer 95

TeeBar | 211 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 5

The creepy-looking dweeb who owns Twitter has no business banning anyone due to the little provision in our Constitution called "Free Speech". It may be a private company but it operates, ostensibly, as a platform for unobstructed commentary.

Answer 96

John_Doesnt | 3.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Donald should have been banned from Twitter 4 years ago.

Hail Satan!

Answer 97

Anonymous

You bring up great points about all of the hypocritical actions of Twitter. Look at the people that they have allowed to continue. The didn't ban trump until he had no power to stop the legislatively

I prey to Allah that he manipulates their stock and drives the prices down until it is worthless and the buys it all up and destroys the liberal radicals who control it.

I will be selling my Twitter stock

Answer 98

OddBeMe | 5.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Private corporation. Their decision. Twitter could be held legally liable if more are murdered from Trump’s incitement.

Answer 99

Not_Average | 417 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 6

I don’t. It’s not so much about Trump as an individual as it the power grab this presents. Big tech teaming up right now to take down all right winged platforms and voices.

Answer 100

StarryCrossing | 152 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 6

Honestly he should’ve been banned months ago, but I found his tweets entertaining. Lol

Answer 101

fxllenone

Xper 3

It doesn't matter anymore. Trump wanted to show the world the dangerous level of power that social media companies have, and he succeeded in doing that. The more his enemies attack him, the more it backfires. These companies didn't just block Donald Trump, they blocked the president of the United States of America.

Fear what is coming, on the 20th.

Answer 102

Anonymous

It's scary he was banned and even scarier people support it. Trump has said multiple times to peacefully and legally protesting. The same can't be said for so many on the left who have supported riots for the past 6 months. They are still on twitter

Sabretooth

4 d
he's encouraged from day one. one immigrant was beaten and pissed on by trumpists... all trump said was that he had passionate supporters.
macnom

3 d
He never encouraged anything. In fact when the protests were happening. Trump on stream to tell protesters to go home peacefully.
Sabretooth

3 d
@macnom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fiT6c0MQ58 he KNEW this would happen-as it has many, many times... just ask Gretchen Whitmer-he knows his base very well. trump has encouraged violence for years -before he even won the election-he taped into the most vile parts of humanity.
Show All Show Less
macnom

3 d
He encouraged protests but nothing was ever said about storming the property, vandalism, destruction of property, or any of those things. The video you sent doesn't support your statement
Sabretooth

3 d
@macnom again, he didn't have to-he knew what would happen. he knows how his base is. according to his aids-he watched with glee.
mistixs

3 d
@Sabretooth that video cropped out the part where he specified to protest peacefully.
Opinion Owner

3 d
@Sabretooth how can you ignore the facts and what he actually said? Trump has consitianly been against all the riots and has said multiple times to protest peacefully. The same can't be said for all the Democrats who no issues with riots that have been going on for the last 6 months
Sabretooth

3 d
because trump talks out of both sides. trump has been inciting violence-talking about attacking protesters and the media-all captured on video-things his supporters have done-wasn't he the one who said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose any voters? again, he understands them very well... why do you think he didn't show up? he tried to let his base take the fall... to him-their just useful idiots-his own daughter was in danger, there. most of that destruction was caused be right-wingers who infiltrated those protests-most of which were peaceful. look at what happened in Michigan-he contently kept pouring fuel on that fire. let's also not forget his tweets of liberation and the 2nd amendment dog whistle.

Answer 103

Sabretooth

he's encouraged from day one. one immigrant was beaten and pissed on by trumpists... all trump said was that he had passionate supporters.

Answer 104

macnom

He never encouraged anything. In fact when the protests were happening. Trump on stream to tell protesters to go home peacefully.

Answer 105

Sabretooth

@macnom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fiT6c0MQ58 he KNEW this would happen-as it has many, many times... just ask Gretchen Whitmer-he knows his base very well. trump has encouraged violence for years -before he even won the election-he taped into the most vile parts of humanity.

Answer 106

macnom

He encouraged protests but nothing was ever said about storming the property, vandalism, destruction of property, or any of those things. The video you sent doesn't support your statement

Answer 107

Sabretooth

@macnom again, he didn't have to-he knew what would happen. he knows how his base is. according to his aids-he watched with glee.

Answer 108

mistixs

@Sabretooth that video cropped out the part where he specified to protest peacefully.

Answer 109

Opinion Owner

@Sabretooth how can you ignore the facts and what he actually said? Trump has consitianly been against all the riots and has said multiple times to protest peacefully. The same can't be said for all the Democrats who no issues with riots that have been going on for the last 6 months

Answer 110

Sabretooth

because trump talks out of both sides. trump has been inciting violence-talking about attacking protesters and the media-all captured on video-things his supporters have done-wasn't he the one who said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose any voters? again, he understands them very well... why do you think he didn't show up? he tried to let his base take the fall... to him-their just useful idiots-his own daughter was in danger, there. most of that destruction was caused be right-wingers who infiltrated those protests-most of which were peaceful. look at what happened in Michigan-he contently kept pouring fuel on that fire. let's also not forget his tweets of liberation and the 2nd amendment dog whistle.

Answer 111

LukeMerchant

Xper 4

You knew rules in advance and what would happen. Anyway, I don't know any country in the whole world that obligated having social network profile.

Answer 112

Paris13 | 4.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Just until after the Inauguration and then BAN what he Says if they DON'T LIKE IT. xx

Answer 113

Inquisitive3 | 68 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 5

No, I do not agree with it. Censorship is never a good thing.

Answer 114

Bee-Hatch | 122 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

Honestly don't care. Twitters a bit of an echo chamber. Completely pointless in the real world.

Answer 115

silvermoon84 | 60 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Explorer

I agree with it and with speech regulations. This goes for all hate speech.

Dweezil

5 d
Even from the Iranians who call for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel?

The Iranian prime minister is allowed on social media. Who is worse? Trump or those who truly call for death and destruction.
silvermoon84

5 d
@Dweezil I said ALL hate speech, including the Iranian prime minister
Dweezil

5 d
Good. Your consistent.

Answer 116

Dweezil

Even from the Iranians who call for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel?

The Iranian prime minister is allowed on social media. Who is worse? Trump or those who truly call for death and destruction.