Jump to content

The donald is DONE on Twitter....permanently banned!


RedZone

Recommended Posts

Interesting thought that crossed my mind earlier about Parler and its losing servers and their lawsuit about anti-trust stuff and all. 

These loons have been here there and everywhere declaring Civil War, then they acted on the threats by charging into the Capitol with intent to do harm to the rightfully elected members of congress and the senate, and even the Vice President. 

During war, one of the first moves is to disrupt communication of the enemy. 

Not saying we're in war exactly, but, I think the safe havens of declaring war and threatening violence against the duly elected government and its citizens does appear to have some consequences. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Twitter is mad that the government in Uganda has banned social media because they don’t want the social media giants interfering in the election. You can’t make this shit up. Lol. 
 

 

They must not have the First Amendment there, which wisely bans government actors from restricting the speech of private citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Belly Bob said:

They must not have the First Amendment there, which wisely bans government actors from restricting the speech of private citizens. 

No, the people in power have accurately pointed out big techs collusion in swaying elections the way they desire, and they are putting a halt to it. They are not banning free speech by their citizens. They are banning big tech from changing the outcome of an election with lies and propaganda. 
 

You knew that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Have you posted a single example of hypocrisy that has made any sense?

🤡

Yes that is as hypocritical as it gets. Twitter bans people based on beliefs they disagree with. So leaders in Uganda disagree with big techs beliefs and shut them down. And Twitter is mad about it. 
 

Twitter being upset is a parody. No normal human could express that in a serious manner 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twitter, Google and Facebook have all coordinated to sway the election to their preferred candidate. They would post anti Trump articles from their buddies at the MSM and move them to the top. When you would google information, anti-Trump and anti-Republican outlets would be the first links you could find. And they all banned as many conservative voices as they could before the election. They had a direct impact with lies and propaganda. 
 

But since they did that in favor of your preferred candidate you will pretend it never happened. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

Yes that is as hypocritical as it gets. Twitter bans people based on beliefs they disagree with. So leaders in Uganda disagree with big techs beliefs and shut them down. And Twitter is mad about it.

Twitter can ban people that it chooses because it's their platform. Twitter criticizing a government for banning social media is not the same thing.

And the government is banning social media because they want to control the message. It's amazing how stupid you are.

Again, you have yet to make single coherent point on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Twitter can ban people that it chooses because it's their platform. Twitter criticizing a government from banning social media is not the same thing.

And the government is banning social media because they want to control the message. It's amazing how stupid you are.

Again, you have yet to make single coherent point on this topic.

Twitter banned people who conveyed messages they disagreed with. And how do you know that big tech doesn’t negatively impact elections in Uganda. Are you an expert? Are you on the commission in Uganda that would make such a determination? Obviously the leaders feel that big tech is a propaganda machine and shouldn’t be trusted. The people of Uganda should not be relying on social media telling them what to think. Kudos to the proactive approach to these evil giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2021 at 6:30 PM, HawgGoneIt said:

Interesting thought that crossed my mind earlier about Parler and its losing servers and their lawsuit about anti-trust stuff and all. 

These loons have been here there and everywhere declaring Civil War, then they acted on the threats by charging into the Capitol with intent to do harm to the rightfully elected members of congress and the senate, and even the Vice President. 

During war, one of the first moves is to disrupt communication of the enemy. 

Not saying we're in war exactly, but, I think the safe havens of declaring war and threatening violence against the duly elected government and its citizens does appear to have some consequences. 

It's tricky because (like you say) we're not at war.

I think Congress is working on a piece of legislation that would introduce new government offices to monitor and combat domestic terrorists, but it's controversial even among Dems, and rightly so.

But I get your point. I think it's just a matter of getting the details right. The devil is in the details. 

We're going to have to work this stuff out in the coming months and years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nolebull813 said:

And how do you know that big tech doesn’t negatively impact elections in Uganda. Are you an expert?

I don't trust the Ugandan government to make that judgment.

Somehow you stand for complete freedom and no consequences for any actions but then you support the Ugandan government for banning social media.

Again, every village in America is missing it's idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

No, the people in power have accurately pointed out big techs collusion in swaying elections the way they desire, and they are putting a halt to it. They are not banning free speech by their citizens. They are banning big tech from changing the outcome of an election with lies and propaganda. 
 

You knew that. 

Oh, I would've thought that the government's banning access to Twitter would itself be a violation of the 1A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Belly Bob said:

It's tricky because (like you say) we're not at war.

I think Congress is working on a piece of legislation that would introduce new government offices whose job would be to monitor and combat domestic terrorists, but it's controversial even among Dems, and rightly so.

But I get your point. I think it's just a matter of getting the details right. The devil is in the details. 

We're going to have to work this stuff out in the coming months and years.

I guess everyone would need to come to a consensus to what a domestic terrorist is. A lot of people feel that the BLM movement is a terrorist organization. The riots and looting in the summer surely would count as domestic terrorism. If you can’t agree with that simple assertion then I would assume there would be a ways to go to find common ground 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

I don't trust the Ugandan government to make that judgment.

Somehow you stand for complete freedom and no consequences for any actions but then you support the Ugandan government for banning social media.

Again, every village in America is missing it's idiot.

Countrys elected leaders and operated governments long before social media existed. Social media isn’t a prerequisite for anyone. No one needs social media to function. Big tech has long been exposed to being biased and evil. I completely understand why they would ban them. 
 

side note. I don’t agree with any banning of any kind. I just find it humorous that the leaders of banning are mad that they are banned. It’s like a thief being offended someone stole from them 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nolebull813 said:

I guess everyone would need to come to a consensus to what a domestic terrorist is. A lot of people feel that the BLM movement is a terrorist organization. The riots and looting in the summer surely would count as domestic terrorism. If you can’t agree with that simple assertion then I would assume there would be a ways to go to find common ground 

We wouldn't need everyone to agree. Not everyone agrees that the Earth is roughly spherical in shape.

But we would need a reasonable definition of domestic terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...