Twitter blocks VP Pence and other conservatives from moments feature

Should you be able to erase the whiteboard in your room if someone else wrote on it?

Twitter just handed Trump another magazine to shoot them with.

private monopolies not bound by 1A

Yea but foreign interference in elections and political discourse is a big problem. The left agrees.

This.

Except Twitter is. It was ruled to be a public forum to stop Trump from blocking people.
money.cnn.com/2018/05/23/media/judge-rules-trump-cant-block-twitter-users/index.html

Attached: 597868.png (797x152, 29K)

Theres gonna be rivers of salt when trumps treats them just like utilities

You CANNOT censor legal speech and still enjoy 230 protections

If you lose 230 protections, you are liable for every illegal thing on your platform

Attached: 20140924_191739_4424_674325.png (875x540, 67K)

soon

>private company
>operates on public domain
>must obey public domain common law

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Trumps account was deemed a public forum because he's president. It doesn't say anything about Twitter as a whole

It's illegal to claim to be an open platform while engaging in censorship.

weren't there cases where someone sued because their graffiti was painted over or some shit like that?

It's all part of the plan. They were told they had to go full retard to get regulated, or die.

It only applies to Trump's profile. If he blocks people they can't see his tweets which he can't since he represents America directly. Twitter can't hide and shadowban Trump as well. But whatever the fuck happens to the rest of the profiles it doesn't matter. Once Twitter as a whole becomes government property then there can't be any censorship but until only a handful of user accounts are government property this thing applies selectively.

why the fuck is this stupid fucking birdie censoring MY VICE PRESIDENT?

Mr. Pence, do I have your permission to smash the BMWs of the Twitter execs who are doing this? Do I have permission to shoot the greys out the sky for controlling these execs into making them do this to you?

Trump said he plans to change this

every western country is like this. rules apparently exist for the left to subjugate the right, northing else

The whole argument about not being able to see his tweets is rendered moot when you can just log out and view them. These cunts were basically mad that someone didn't want to listen to them shit talking non-stop.

i know sounds bullshit, and probably is illegal, but Trump's account is declared as public forum, not the Twitter as a whole.
i wonder what would hacking his account be, since you're trying to access public forum.

Probably, but my point is this is communist bait.
Google/Facebook/Amazon etc are all heavily government funded, in fact they get around as much money as DARPA. The deepstate pays them to censor and control information.
The solution shouldn’t be to give the state even more control than they already have in order to solve a problem it created,

It should be like, if you are in a hotel with a white board on the wall in ‘your’ hotel room. The hotel staff can’t rush in and moderate what’s written on it, and the government shouldn’t be allowed to pay hotels to do this.

Unfortunately the 1st Amendment only grantees protection from Governmental speech restriction. It would be nice if there was a precedent for speech regulation under the 1st Amendment to protect specifically political speech in all institutions.

The real problem here, is that American people have forgotten that while the 1st Amendment protects us from the government stifling our speech, the actual "Freedom of Speech" is a core American value. Having a societal value like this means that a real American should find the censoring of speech distasteful wherever it occurs even if we don't like what is being censored. A core value is not a law, which means that people enforce it by letting other people and institutions outside of the Government know that we don't think it's ok when they do it, just because it's technically not violating the an amendment in the bill of rights. Americans have been demoralized, this is part of what it means to be demoralized. Americans have lost their way, and right now we're seeing a battle between real Americans upholding American values like freedom of speech and people who call themselves Americans but ironically use the rights guaranteed to them through the constitution in an attempt to undermine the very same document that enables their behavior. It's paradoxical. I hope real American values win out in the end, and I hope people remember what it means to be American someday.

Beyond all that though, I think this whole thing is a farce to introduce government regulation of the internet. They've been trying for decades to get their foot in that door, and everything about this is just a little too convenient for my taste. A little too coordinated to be coincidence. It really feels like they're doing these things on purpose to create a problem, and gullible people like we always do, will run to the Government and beg them to solve it for us. Lo and behold when they have a solution ready to go as soon as that outcry happens.

The ruling designated Twitter as a public platform and declared it illegal for any government official to block people for political speech. I didn't agree with the ruling but the left can't have their cake and eat it too. They essentially nationalized so they can continue spamming Trump's tweets.

In this case the government is paying private social media a billion dollars a year to censor us though, so it’s really still a government problem.
Specifically the government can’t censor, so it’s paying the people who can to do it.

>The solution shouldn’t be to give the state even more control than they already have in order to solve a problem it created
Precisely what I'm talking about.

>Create problem
>Propose solution
>all goes according to plan

Yes. Soon we will amend our laws to make sure social media officially falls under free speech, because right now these media companies are acting as a defacto government.

these internet companies are allowed to get away with anything while other industries get regulated to hell and back.

that is not a functioning "free market".

we can bring Twitter back to accountability because much of it's metastructure is actually still the government.

Its not that I don't believe you, because I absolutely do. And in fact have believed for a long time that Facebook specifically is a CIA creation, or at the very least has been taken over by them completely...

But I'd like to see some evidence for your claims, so that I can start replicating and spreading them with confidence.

Unfortunately they have become the de-facto public square.
They basically have a choice. Allow actual free political speech or go to the supreme court and be bombarded with porn when it rules they are the de facto public square and must honor the 1st amendment.
Additionally they would still have a case if they did not act in unison in banning Alex Jones. It would have given them a case that there is competition and they are there fore not the public square. As seen with Alex Jones they all banned him with in hours.
The two combined is why they have an issue.
1. These platforms are the public square.
2. They acted in unison so competition can not be claimed as other options.

Cake Guy vs Internet Giants censorship:
Cake Guy there were plenty of other options available.
Ask a normie the options besides Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram. They don't know so to block them is block the public square.
The cake shop offered other options in their store.
The internet giants did not offer an alternative or choose to limit an option. They banned them completely. They could have just chosen to limit their exposure to people that don't follow them and would be in the clear.
Once these platforms became this big they took on an additional responsibility. All of these platforms offer the user the ability to turn off someone they do not like. Leave it to the user to determine what they listen to.

Attached: WasHeStealingIt.png (245x280, 99K)

Build a better twitter. No, not gab.

And by doing this a legal barrier to the creation of social media is added, but Facebook can easily adhere, cementing it into place so it can never be supplanted.
Fuck you useful idiots.

>metastructure is actually still the government.
Please explain?

From what I understand of the situation, these big internet "media" companies will end up falling under the same rules as telecom companies.

Attached: what internet censorship is like.jpg (1328x468, 225K)

LOL legal barrier? You mean they are forced to allow free speech?

That is the removal of barriers idiot.

Liberals are such good capitalists at the end of the day.

Your room is not open to the public idiot.

Not going to happen. Big Tech will not allow real competitors to rise anymore. Cyberpunk megacorporations are getting very real.

haha that'll show 'em!

Yeah they are company towns are obligated to allow free speech on their property.

Yeah, but have you heard about Russia hacking the election for Drumpf?

Gab is growing though. They have over half a million users and they're gaining something like 5000 a day now.

My take on the issue he's bringing up, is the introduction of rule and regulations around the creation of a social media site BEYOND "lol you can't censor speech" will cripple challengers in the space reducing competition, much like we've seen with regulation in other areas.

If it's just "hey the 1st amendment applies to you now" then fine, but I think we both know there are going to be complex legalese shit thrown together using this issue as the foot in the door so-to-speak.

Yea you’ve never run a forum. Even Chans moderate content, old forums definitely had to as well, and they would have gone to shit if they weren’t allowed to.

>censoring the heads of governments
>twitter owned by saudi arabia and jews

just who is meddling in my democracy again, liberals? kikes and arabs. liberals still parroting the russia narrative are mindslaves of kikes and arabs

Attached: .png (500x680, 122K)

This one will cost them. You can't fucking ban(in any way) the Vice President of the Free World.

This too, because either twitter is a tovate company or it’s a government asset in these definitions. If it’s the latter then this will be abused.

The actual solution is to prohibit government from subsidizing social media that censors to its liking, because that’s the root cause.

Nonsense. You just have to do it in a non-obvious way and be eventually willing to pay for your own server hardware and datacenter space.

In fact it could be argued that the government giving money to pay a private organization to censor sand misdirect is a 1st amendment violation.

Nothing will happen. Outraged white conservatives are a shrinking demographic. Trump won’t be in power forever.

if Twitter bans me then I can't see his tweets

There will be a bitcoin-operated free and open forum based in singapore or something somewhere in the future, for the very reason that the free market demands it and nature abhors a vacuum. Gab is literally standing in the way of this happening, branding themselves with a green frog and perpetuating the lie that "Only alt-righters care about free speech." FUCK THEM.

>open to the public.
The first amendment still protects me as the hotel owner. It’s MY space and MY billboards. Fuck off commy.
If you want a solution, make it illegal for the CIA to subsidize my hotel in exchange for censoring you.

Well the real argument is that if twitter is curating then it's a publisher and not a platform and can be sued for the content published.

I bet his room is. Rev up the cockcs!

>there will be
Bullshit. It’s intentionally designed to be cost and profit prohibitive to get site traffic past a certain point. Mega Tech made sure of it.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google are committing election meddling by censoring conservative speech before the Mid-Terms.

We need to support Paul Nehlen's "Shall Not Censor" bill, or at least something similar.

Google. If you don't want to wallop google for their cancer, gtfo.

Are you a retard? I’m advocating prohibiting the CIA from giving them a billion a year to censor us.
Making laws to cement google as a “public platform” only helps google.

Big booty bump

Attached: f.gif (310x248, 2.26M)

Attached: 23871928493.png (804x732, 240K)

How often do new railroad companies rise up to the oligarchy created when they were nationalized?

>The actual solution is to prohibit government from subsidizing social media that censors to its liking, because that’s the root cause.
Can I get some hard evidence that the government is funding things like Facebook and Twitter?

the media narrative is if you support free speech then you are alt-right
the media narrative is that being alt-right is bad
if being labeled alt-right for defending free speech upsets you, then you are a niggerfaggot

how so? they could no longer promote factually wrong ideologies. It's a bandaid on a wound as i'm a fan of nationalisation. when we privatized the dutch railroad, they failed to ride on time and stop riding if it freezes. yeah.....

Yet being banned doesn't grant you access to a public figure's account as we learned it a public space since Trump had to unblock people.

Maybe in leaf land, but not in the US, according to SCOTUS decisions regarding private companies that exercise a monopolistic hold on a given medium. DMCA safe harbor protections granted to these platforms weakens the 'private company' exception even more.

Sleepy Jeff should wake the fuck up or resign.

Attached: 1535689515199.jpg (450x641, 31K)

>when we privatized the dutch railroad, they failed to ride on time and stop riding if it freezes. yeah.....
That's why getting the government involved is a very dangerous step and we need to tread lightly. That's why it's SO OBVIOUS that this is a planned coordinated action to rile up the masses so we DEMAND that big daddy government come in and save us from ourselves. It's a tricky issue, because on the one hand FB/Twitter/Youtube/etc. are all such huge platforms that if they decide to do these sorts of things, it can have a massive effect on public opinion, and as things are now people don't have much alternatives.

But in my opinion, these actions should just serve for people to demand alternatives, not government intervention. If ANY of these companies lose their user base because the vast majority of people disagree with their practices and take their eyes and clicks elsewhere, then something else will rise up to fill its place and offer a platform that people can trust again, and aligns with their values.

But people need to actually have those values to see them as being violated to feel motivated to boycott online social media companies. see

>Additionally they would still have a case if they did not act in unison in banning Alex Jones.
This is precisely what makes it look like a setup. And AJ is a suspected patsy anyway.

Wrong
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/

Nationalizing Twitter is not “right wing” it’s “useful idiot” and very leftist authoritarian.

>Obama legalizes domestic propaganda.
>Social Media gets nationalized.
You guys are suiciding.

In a strictly legal sense, you are correct. But a country is governed not only by its laws, but its cultural norms and value system. Freedom of speech is an American value, and people should be outraged when it happens, even if there isn't a direct legal recourse.

The response should be to take our business elsewhere, or solidify certain freedom of speech protection extended beyond strictly Governmental institutions, like the work-place and social media.

the railroad was never nationalized here, it was built on command of the king (colonial era) and was owned by him too.
The competition argument sounds nice on paper, but it ''forgets'' that the monopoly holder represses competitors rising up. Plus it takes very long to take hold. How about a Ban-ban? meaning you can never be banned on a platform but can still be arrested if you post CP on YT or something. would work?

except that all totalitarians love to control the media.

I totally agree,

See
I feel this is a push by Government to get their foot in the door another way for Internet regulation... Same thing as with the net neutrality fiasco, and SOPA-style legislation they were pushing a while back (and still are).

Yes and this is an attempt to let government directly do that.
Next we will be outlawing “fake news” because we hate CNN but then there will be far reaching consequences as free speech is killed.

>Free speech is authoritarian

Literally kill yourself

>telling people what they can do on their own property is freedom.
Kill yourself.

The blowback from this will be beautiful.

I think on certain things you're correct. But we're talking about the internet here. All you need is for some suitable replacement to come along and "go viral" and these current monopolies could be platformed literally overnight.

We've seen it happen before, such as with MySpace being overtaken by Facebook.

In some romantic sense, I would love to see a social media platform like Jow Forums become the alternative David that slays the current giants.

>The internet is your property

Kill yourself

>it’s named the patriot act so that means it’s patriotic.

Look at this buttmad shill replying to me twice

Kill yourself anti free speech faggot

Good point, we should abandon neutrality and simply nationalize social media, forcing it to push an America First agenda, and work with us to silence and purge leftwing traitors.

Jow Forums needs to become full-on commercialized to have a fighting chance. I doubt I want a new (((Jow Forums)))

>twitter is the internet.
Okay brainlet.

Lmfao you are so fucking stupid