As an American you are free to say whatever you desire publicly in public spaces as long you aren't trying to incite violence or get someone seriously hurt or killed, but no matter how you try to explain the 1st amendment doesn't extend to private internet websites code of ethics, conservatives just don't understand.
Once the platform begins publishing content, especially endorsing a particular political party, and once it has become a public utility, using it to enforce the FBI and Congress' blatantly unconstitutional mandates that our every thought and word be policed; is tantamount to them demanding that the phone company allow them to snoop on your every phone call, whether mobile or via wiretapping of a landline!
And don't think for one nanosecond that if you tolerate tyranny when social media giants become an arm of lawless mandates, that they won't expand this to include spying on you in other ways!
Next, it'll be the phone. When that's no longer safe, you'll switch to snail mail. Your right to privacy of the mail will be the next thing to go out the window. The second Biden mumbles something incoherent about "threats to democracy," thousands of drooling fools will lie down and happily allow the powers that are tolerated to act like the law against tampering with the mail doesn't exist. They did that in Michigan already in 2020, to influence elections, so it's not just a theory that it'll happen again!
When even that isn't enough, expect them to plant bugs in the very trees, to monitor your speech. And while you're out, to break into your home and plant bugs in your house!
So meeting in the woods to privately express your opinion on anything with anyone in what should be a confidential matter will literally be as risky as telling it to Tumnus the Fawn, since even the trees will betray you to the Black-Armored Thugs, who may as well be the wolves of the White Witch.
And you can forget about the privacy of your bedroom. The only time that's respected, is if you're engaged in sexual perversion. That, they hail as sacred. Nothing else though!
Who is government supposed to be, according to the constitution? All of us. Not some unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucracy. Nor some communism-idealizing woke cult taking over a social media utility, acting as an arm of that bureau!
So the entire assault on freedom of speech here is lawless from top to bottom, no matter how you slice it.
When feminists can gloat over criminal conspiracies in public done to ruin men, claim some "patriarchy" boogeyman as their excuse, and get off scott free for admission to a crime, but you get 30 days in a virtual gulag for telling her that her patriarchy boogeyman is a myth, and that her behavior is trash, because gasp, her being the ultimate bully is fine, but me calling her out on it is "bullying," because woke double standards?
That's inexcusable. Period. Death to Black Rock!
But American Conservatives do understand that. MAGAheads don't. American Conservatives have always maintained that private businesses need to be free of government interference. Elon Musk owns Twitter, he can make it into anything he wants. And MAGAheads are applauding him.
But he is pissed off that advertising is leaving his platform. When the market speaks. Private businesses win. Elon can run his platform whatever way he wish. Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple, if he dislikes the climate that Twitter has for gay and lesbians, he can to go another platform and advertise there.
Why MAGA heads think that they can use the government to force people to pay them for their troll dens is beyond me. But that is not going to happen. They can create any troll den they want. People can throw around racial slurs, spout homophobia, anti-semitism, threats of violence, and disinformation.
The rest of us don't have to deal with such nonsense.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041493544/youtube-vaccine-misinformation-ban
YouTube Is Banning All Content That Spreads Vaccine Misinformation
How many times do you we to need ask the question? That question being who decides what is and what is not disinformation? Not only that, what is hate speech? What is something in which we must be like Canada, Germany, or the UK, or Australia, or New Zealand? The law says you cannot incite violence. That is it. What were Trump's last Tweets? You bitch about Conspiracy theories too. How many of them come true? The LEFT loves to control people. Like they don't have a brain. Now Libtards are doing this thing, where they say they are leaving Twitter, yet won't leave Twitter. Why? Because they need to fight for Big Tech bullshit? They cannot cede Twitter?
Apple is leaving Twitter? No they aren't. Apple is simply not advertising "AS MUCH" anymore. Fantastic. Who needs Tim Cook? Jobs is rolling in his grave. Apple sucked in the FIRST PLACE. They had a place in the 80's and 90's for education. Cheap computers for EDUCATION. Now what do they do? They ride on the coat tails of dumbasses. Too many dumbasses who simply pay for over rated shit! It makes people feel good because they think that price gets them something superior. When Intel took over their Motorola processors, suddenly Windows can run on their shit! Why buy Apple when you can get PC's that destroy them on the cheap?
What did Alyssa Milano do on the VIEW? Said if he simply invested that money to UNICEF, he would one handedly end WORLD HUNGER? Bull shit. That money would have been ate up in the span of two to three years. And it gets nowhere, only if he spent it here for our Homeless, ate up in no time. @RolandCuthbert You are so butt hurt for Ukraine. Why?
Social media is where they circulate their conspiracy theories and misinformation. They want to expand the first amendment through judicial activism so they can continue to do so with impunity. It really boils down to that. However, the first amendment has never applied to private companies, nor did the founders ever intend it to. That would be a new court created right. It would also prevent sites from regulating cyber bullying, hate speech, pornography, propaganda etc. Social media would become the Wild West and advertising dollars would become scarce. You’d kill the platforms without the ability to regulate. It’s a terrible idea.
There are a lot of Americans who swear they are patriotic and true Americans and yet they have no clue or understanding how American laws or constitution works and are the least American act people.
Opinion
23Opinion
While you're correct in principle, you're missing the more nuanced point that conservatives are making.
If 2-3 social media companies control 90%+ of the internet traffic, is it correct for them to collude to hide information that's damaging to Democrats? Is it correct for them to silence a political candidate and sitting president? Is that still a "prIvAtE CoMpaNy"?
If these social media companies are coerced by the FBI and the Biden administration to take certain people off their sites... isn't that the government interfering in the freedom of speech?
Now the simple phrase "men will never be women" is now considered 'inciting violence" by the left.
Have you noticed it's only conservative voices having their Twitter accounts reinstated? Wonder why.
Then it's the responsibility of conservative media to built a bigger and more entertaining media spaces and websites to attract more audiences, instead of being on left wing media which you guys don't like them anyways so don't be on their websites nor support their websites by joining.
Right, and then Amazon kills their web hosting.
Huh? There are conservative media out there to push y'all own views and agendas.
Tucker Carlson is the most watched conservative anchor on cable news and isn't even close.
You read what I typed and conveniently ignored all of it.
I don't understand what the hell you are talking about Amazon killed their web hosting?
Conservative can just create their own versions of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
Hire a web designer etc.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy why would YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram willingly allow competition. Just bad buisness.
Look at Spotify's controversy with Joe Rogan.
those web pages need to be hosted by a provider. Amazon Web services is one, They will cut off access to the sites of conservative social media
Again it's a bad move by amazon. They are getting political and alienating Conservatives
I said you were probably lying about it being "only conservative voices". I think he's talked about reinstating every nutter, no matter what side. You'll probably get yours back!
Try to understand: All the people who were banned were people who broke the rules.
You claimed they were "only conservative voices".
Were the people who broke the rules "only conservative voices", or not?
Did Musk only reinstate "only conservative voices", like you claim?
You're the one claiming no "lefties who were banned" are being reinstated.
@goaded funny because one of the last tweets from Trump's account was:
"I am asking for everyone at the U. S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
Sounds like he was banned for something else, not violating the rules on inciting violence. So yeah, arbitrary, unwritten rules by tech companies are being rolled back by Elon. Not actual rules based on a common understanding of Freedom of Speech.
Again, bullshit. That wasn't why he was banned.
Two before that tweet: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"
Two afterwards was: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/.../tweets-january-6-2021
It was literally his job, and he was testifying under oath. What are your credentials?
“This employee was on the team responsible for platform and content moderation policies on Twitter throughout 2020 and 2021,” he added. “The employee testified that Twitter considered adopting a stricter content moderation policy after President Trump told the Proud Boys to ‘stand back and standby’ from the lectern at the September 29 presidential debate, but Twitter chose not to act.”
“If former President Donald Trump were any other user on Twitter, he would have been permanently suspended a very long time ago,” the employee told the committee.
Once again. It was their job. They knew what they were doing, and they said under oath that “If former President Donald Trump were any other user on Twitter, he would have been permanently suspended a very long time ago,”.
You, on the other hand are some nobody on the internet claiming things you couldn't possibly know, like the political leanings of the expert witness.
No, of course not. If you've got questions about plumbing, it makes sense to ask a plumber, if you've got questions about Twitter's moderation policies, it makes sense to ask someone whose job it was to implement them. Like the guy who said under oath that “If former President Donald Trump were any other user on Twitter, he would have been permanently suspended a very long time ago,”.
I don't know, what's yours? Their identity was withheld to protect them from the death threats people get for telling the truth about Trump. They were testifying under oath that “If former President Donald Trump were any other user on Twitter, he would have been permanently suspended a very long time ago,” and you're just a nobody making shit up anonymously, as usual.
@goaded I would interject that since its been proven that former twitter moderators had a natural bias and prejudice against anyone with conservative opinions you are very much correct on what you say, truth is they couldn't very well censor or ban the then current democratically elected president of the United States, anti conservative prejudice or not.
That's why it's so good that free speech is now possible on twitter and its no longer the liberal echo chamber it was.
@USLegionary Nonsense. "Conservative" voices are far more likely to advocate violence, that's all. ISTR Twitter (or maybe Facebook) having problems automating detection of right-wing extremism like they did Islamist extremism, because they were blocking Republican lawmaker's posts.
Twitter's dying.
They quit Twitter before Musk took over (you're wrong yet again, loser), and of course they're an expert on the job they were doing there: “If former President Donald Trump were any other user on Twitter, he would have been permanently suspended a very long time ago," Of course, you think the rantings of a nobody on the internet should be given more weight than an expert testifying under oath.
“This employee was on the team responsible for platform and content moderation policies on Twitter throughout 2020 and 2021.”
@USLegionary Well, that was a load of crap. There were 25 million protesters supporting BLM, the vast majority were indeed peaceful. In the minority of cases where they weren't, many times the violence wasn't started by the protesters but by the police or right-wing agitators (like the Boogaloo boi who shot and killed two law enforcement officers). The Democratic politicians were calling for protests, not violence, and all the right-wing talk about supporting law enforcement disappeared as soon as they were being prevented from illegally overturning the lawful election proceedings on Jan 6, leading to about 140 police being injured.
Just yesterday "Oath Keepers" members were convicted of seditious conspiracy. It was not a "normal tourist visit" or “legitimate political discourse.” It was the final attempt to overturn the 2020 election by violence, once non-violent but still unlawful attempts had failed.
Some do, some don’t. The fact is most progressives don’t understand that either.
Here’s the prevailing difference as far as i can tell: Big tech is literally altering information through political bias. This effects popular opinion which in turn effects elections at every conceivable level. Who is really hurt when a closed-minded baker won’t make a dildo cake for your gay wedding? Ell oh ell! Contrarily, how many criminals now have seats of power and influence because everyone believes everything they read on FB and twits united? Let that sink in.
I think it is a human thing not a political party thing. Both sides are made of people and people have biases that they can't always see. What you mentioned is just an obvious bias that exists on the right more so. Their are plenty of people on the left that support the idea of social media platforms suppressing speech as they see fit but in the same breathe don't support someone ignorant enough to spout hate speech. I believe good ideas are the counter to bad ideas and the only way that happens is if you let ignorant people say ignorant things.
Here's the problem with that, how do you define what's hate speech, and what's ignorance?
Making fun of someone's ball head can be interpreted as hate speech by some sensitive snowflake.
The trouble is the fact that they claim to be a public platform while acting like a private forum in exercising control of what is said (AKA censorship).
This is a problem because a public platform is only not responsible for what is published/stolen via their platform on the presumption they don't exercise control of what the users say/do in a public form.
When they do exercise such control they have proven their platform is NOT a public form and thus they ARE responsible for every criminal act they CHOOSE to involve themself in.
YouTube, Facebook, twitter, Apple etc.. for example are responsible for trillions of dollars worth of Intellectual property thief that they apparently CHOOSE to facilitate and publish via their platforms.
Google, Apple, Facebook, twitter still has not paid for what they have stolen. They are still claiming they were a public form (with free speech) and thus placing the user alone as responsible.
What @monorprise said. Also, at least in Facebook's case, they active earn money off known false and scam advertisers while claiming the platform "lack of control" malarkey, yet are able in under a minute to label a post "False info" for misattribution of an obscure quote or saying something like "$35,000,000" when it was really "$34,400,000."
So, yes, they should be able to do what they want, but in exercising publisher controls they should forfeit the legal protections intended for actual free platforms.
It's funny how liberals have reversed their opinion on the matter with Elon Musk buying twitter.
What Conservatives realise is that if you don't like social media censoring free speech you don't use it or fund it.
Remember how Gab was nearly destroyed via mobs getting Amazon and Apple to go after its right to exist?
It's not enough for Tide zombies to kick anyone not them off Twitter. They don't want anyone not them to have any platform, anywhere. Because they know if their cult think must compete in a fair arena of competition of ideas, they'll lose.
So Musk taking away their stolen valor and easy trophies was an act of war.
@ObscuredBeyond https://youtu.be/RzYr1QyjTW0
I'm more concerned about the media's reaction. It's clearer than ever that they have absolutely no regard for the truth or an opposing view. They applaud fellow journalists being censored and blast an open forum that might actually force them to defend their thoughts and narrative. They have become a fucking disgrace!
privately owned? you do realize you can publicly buy stock in them, don't you? Stock = ownership which means it's public. Also, re-read everything @ ObscuredBeyond wrote and you have the truth of the differences between publishers and platforms. A platform allows unobstructed viewpoints from all sides, and welcomes the discussion/debate, while a "publisher" supports one side, and there's ample evidence of ALL the big media platforms simping for Democrats and they even admit it in live interviews. Check out the Zuck, admitting they covered up Hunter's laptop story and more for election purposes.
Also, go read about how Amazon shut down Parler, which was considered to be a conservative platform, while Amazon was sucking liberal cock.
Because those "privately owned social media" companies benefit from tax breaks that are for utilities, which means they don't fall under the same rules as other private companies. They need to forfeit those tax incentives to legally be able to censor people the way they do.
The reason is that many American conservatives understand that monopolies or companies that in aggregate have the potential to exert control over what is said via major platforms for speech have, in the past, been regulated against doing so. One example is the old telephone system, which was exempted for liability for what was said during phone calls but was also forbidden from regulating what was said during phone calls.
Take your meds. You're the biggest conservative on this site.
You so funny. 😂😂
Give me five reasons you aren't a liberal.
You can't list one.
My liberalism isn't what these modern-day extreme weirdos believe in i. e. a man can be a woman, woman be a man, censorship of speech, open borders BS.
My liberal ideals are willing to change the status quo for the betterment of the citizens and country, strong social programs in place for the needy, unversial healthcare, free education.
You either love the illegals flowing into the DM or you don't. Grow a pair.
We DO understand. We're saying that it shouldn't be like this. Also, if free speech is supposed to be protected in all public/government institutions, why I did I get send to the office for saying that the root "homo" means "gay"?
On the other hand, when there is a privateLy owned social media platform that doesn't censor along with all the others (co-operating with the deep government, obviously, since they all, always, act in unison), it's the 1st amendment haters, and freedom of speech and mind haters, that bay at that company.
True, except that it was already proven that they were being coerced by government entities to censor what the government deemed at “misinformation” and “disinformation”, which was really just opposing political opinions.
Social media platforms want to be treated as common carriers but also want to be able to censor communication that disagrees with democrats. They cannot have it both ways. Either they are common carriers or they are news outlets.
Have you ever tried reporting a scammer on Facebook? They allow that. Because it doesn't "Violate community guidelines." Must be nice having deep pockets and a constitution to hide behind.
100% Blatant scams are allowed with impunity on Facebook. Disgusting company
Why limit it to conservatives? Liberals don't understand what the First Amendment applies to, and doesn't apply to, as well.
Technically companies like Twitter and Apple are NOT "private". Once a company is registered on the NYSE or the NASDAQ stock, then it is no longer "private". TWTR and AAPL are public.
Yes it does. The first amendment is in the constitution which is the law of the land. Just because you’re a private company doing business in America doesn’t mean you can skirt the law
Ok, according to your logic I can walk and be in your house or on your property and say f*&* you to your face and there isn't damn thing you can do about it since you have to respect my free speech, huh?
@Pterdon: In such cases employees can just say whatever to their boss, customers and if they get fired and in trouble for it then they can claim their constitutional rights were violated.
You're not making any logical sense.
Most Democrats don't know any of the amendments, let along the 1st and especially the 2nd amendment. Democrats try to shut down freedom of speech, then anyone else.
Conservatives would like to control all speech if possible.
It's actually the far left that desires to cancel comedians, people who speak out and speak their minds.
once again, you lefties accuse others of what you are doing.
Exactly so why are the left losing thier shit now that elon is enforcing the rules unilaterally instead of unidirectionaly
Same for antivaxxers in a private business space, like grocery store. They just don’t get it.
The problem is that the government was directing these platforms to silence people.
Then they should have blocked leftists and not conservatives.
Only because conservatives don't boycott companies that they disagree with.
Capitalism doesn't silence people. Companies in league with the government isn't capitalism, even though it is often called crony capitalism.
As long as I don't talk about who employs me I can and often do.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
