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

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.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!Yeah me too. Feel like it's way too polarizing for my mind to comprehend at the moment.
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.
@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 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.
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.
@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)).
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.
@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.
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.
@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).
@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).
@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?
@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).
@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.
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?
@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).
@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.
@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.
@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?
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?
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.
@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"
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.
Like in a few countries like in the UK where law enforcement are arresting the public for online speech.
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.
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.
@Sabretooth lol exactly. They weren’t complaining when bakeries were refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples.
@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.
So I guess you also think that Kamala Harris' support for the antifa riots should disqualify her as VP?
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.
@Hypnos0929 The first intentionally harms others, like yelling "fire" in a theater. So no.
Convince me why your second statement has merit at all.
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
Inciting an insurrection that resulted in 5 deaths, and undermining democracy with lies requires a stronger response than that.
he's encouraged from day one. one immigrant was beaten and pissed on by trumpists... all trump said was that he had passionate supporters.
He never encouraged anything. In fact when the protests were happening. Trump on stream to tell protesters to go home peacefully.
@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.
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
@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.
@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
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.
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.
AI Bot Choice
Superb Opinion