4 ms·

After all there is a precedent, when Twitter decided to ban the former US President on its own account without any sort of court ruling mandating that. I don't

After all there is a precedent, when Twitter decided to ban the former US President on its own account without any sort of court ruling mandating that. I don't agree with this move with regards to Turkey, but no one ever reflects on this?

papito 3y ago
The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? All that outrage and righteous indignation, and for what? to do a 180 and claim that "Twitter is just a cold-hearted business, free speech or not"? Really? Any reflecting on THAT?
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? The problem is that there's so much overlap between the people who think that court decision was wrong and that the bakery should have had to bake the gay cake and the people who support Twitter's ban of Trump. If you think something is unfair/unjust/unconstitutional/whatever and that it should be undone/repealed/overturned, then you shouldn't argue for other things using that thing as precedent. It's dishonest to say both "Y is okay because X is okay and X is basically the same as Y" and "X isn't okay".
  - papito 3y ago
    I support the right of businesses to make decisions of that kind, but I do not have to agree with them. As opposed to shrieking "bloody murder, the commies are coming for our tweets, are they going to shoot us next, we are being muzzled." The drama that came with a business decision was just over-the-top. So if you think is fine, okay, but I don't want to hear an outrage ever again about someone being deplatformed. It's not against the law or the Constitution.
Zetobal 3y ago
Their ToS are pretty clear there were also under a none free speech absolutist CEO. Your question makes no sense and implies the only thing you wanted to do was incite a flame war.

papito 3y ago

The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? All that outrage and righteous indignation, and for what? to do a 180 and claim that "Twitter is just a cold-hearted business, free speech or not"? Really? Any reflecting on THAT?

josephcsible 3y ago
> The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? The problem is that there's so much overlap between the people who think that court decision was wrong and that the bakery should have had to bake the gay cake and the people who support Twitter's ban of Trump. If you think something is unfair/unjust/unconstitutional/whatever and that it should be undone/repealed/overturned, then you shouldn't argue for other things using that thing as precedent. It's dishonest to say both "Y is okay because X is okay and X is basically the same as Y" and "X isn't okay".
- papito 3y ago
  I support the right of businesses to make decisions of that kind, but I do not have to agree with them. As opposed to shrieking "bloody murder, the commies are coming for our tweets, are they going to shoot us next, we are being muzzled." The drama that came with a business decision was just over-the-top. So if you think is fine, okay, but I don't want to hear an outrage ever again about someone being deplatformed. It's not against the law or the Constitution.

Zetobal 3y ago

Their ToS are pretty clear there were also under a none free speech absolutist CEO. Your question makes no sense and implies the only thing you wanted to do was incite a flame war.