*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

If anything, refusing to ban white supremacists because it would mean having to ban some GOP congressmen seems like a right-wing bias to me.

[TheSpoonald]

If anything, refusing to ban white supremacists because it would mean having to ban some GOP congressmen seems like a right-wing bias to me.

There's just too many instances of shady shit happening to right-leaning people for it not to be a coordinated campaign. Cmon...wake up..

Watch Jack and his hot Indian sidekick go on Joe Rogan's podcast and try to explain this. Jack won't even show his eyes on camera for fuck's sake. They sat there for two hours and lied through their teeth about the anti-right bias. You talk about Trump's lies....Twitter is WAY more powerful than Trump!! But they can blatantly lie to a camera and you just think "oh, the algorithm must need work"

Jeez man......

[Poopadoop]

There's just too many instances of shady shit happening to right-leaning people for it not to be a coordinated campaign. Cmon...wake up..

Watch Jack and his hot Indian sidekick go on Joe Rogan's podcast and try to explain this. Jack won't even show his eyes on camera for fuck's sake. They sat there for two hours and lied through their teeth about the anti-right bias. You talk about Trump's lies....Twitter is WAY more powerful than Trump!! But they can blatantly lie to a camera and you just think "oh, the algorithm must need work"

Jeez man......

None of this is factual. Explain what the 'shady shit' is and provide some evidence it is happening more to right-leaning people than anyone else.

Then, assuming you can do that, explain why Twitter is required to be apolotical, and why this standard doesn't apply to other media.

[TheSpoonald]

None of this is factual. Explain what the 'shady shit' is and provide some evidence it is happening more to right-leaning people than anyone else.

Dude....they held senate hearings about it. Do we really have to have a debate about whether this is actually happening or not?

explain why Twitter is required to be apolotical, and why this standard doesn't apply to other media.

The standard does apply to other media. If you pick up the phone and call Oskar to talk about how much you hate muslims, and how schools would be better if they were segregated by color, that's fine. The phone company can't take away your phone just because you're using it for racist things.

And you might be saying "yeah but Oskar is a willing participant in that call and its private". Doesn't matter. You can open up the phone book, pick out any name, dial the number and say "Hello, my name is Poop, and I'd like to talk to you today about why Bruce Jenner is still a man". That's all completely legal, and if the phone company tried to stop you, they would be breaking the law.

Let's say you and your friends used your telephones to communicate while planning a bank robbery. YOu got caught, went to prison, and got out. You move into a new apartment and try to have the phone hooked up.....as long as you can pay, they have to hook you up. They can't say "Sorry sir, you can't be trusted not to use our phone lines for bad things"

That completely apolitical, apathetic, and unwavering neutral stance on all things at all times is absolutely necessary for public platforms that become integrated into our economy enough to become infrastructure. There are laws governing phone lines, and the electric grid for exactly this reason. Access to these services is completely necessary to function in the economy. Allowing discrimination by a private company, which is not bound by the constitution, undermines the fairness of the marketplace.

The law simply has to catch up to the technology now. Twitter and Facebook qualify as necessary economic infrastructure. So a choice must be made. Are they a platform, or a publisher? That's the question that congress has to decide.

If they are platforms, then they are part of the economic infrastructure and thus have to be fair to all people at all times. The same laws that govern public utilities and communication companies would simply apply to Twitter and Facebook. We don't even have to do anything. The laws are already written.

The other option, is that Twitter and FB are publishers. In that case, they are responsible for everything that they publish. If you published a book that said that I was not a handsome genius, then I would have a case against you for libel. But I would also have a case against your publisher. They would be just as responsible for your statements as you are. So if that's the route Twitter and FB wanna go, then they are legally culpable for *EVERY* instance of slander, incitement, bullying, and defamation that exist in those cesspools of humanity.

What they don't get to do is say "Hey man, we're just a private company conducting our private business in our own way. If folks don't like it they don't have to be on our platform"

Legality aside, there is a moral argument to be made here. America's system of individual freedom and the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has created the ideal environment for these companies to thrive. Part of that system is the unequivocal freedom of speech, and by extension, the freedom of thought. I don't care if these are private entities or if the constitution technically applies. Only a supremely narcissistic dick head would think "It's bad for the government to regulate speech because they would do a bad job. I would do a good job, so it's ok for me to compromise this principle that I supposedly believe in very deeply. I'm smart enough, right enough, moral enough, 'woke' enough, and *GOOD* enough to censor speech in a way that works and is good for everybody"

It makes me sick that people who think like that are actually getting rich in America.

EDIT: It also makes me sick that people like that are allowed to be forum moderators in America

I hope Jack Dorsey gets AIDS and Zuckerberg wakes up with terminal cancer tomorrow.

I mean that. I really really do.

[Poopadoop]

Dude....they held senate hearings about it. Do we really have to have a debate about whether this is actually happening or not?

Are these the same ones where they asked why you get pictures of Trump if you google 'idiot'? Lol.

The standard does apply to other media. If you pick up the phone and call Oskar to talk about how much you hate muslims, and how schools would be better if they were segregated by color, that's fine. The phone company can't take away your phone just because you're using it for racist things.

And you might be saying "yeah but Oskar is a willing participant in that call and its private". Doesn't matter. You can open up the phone book, pick out any name, dial the number and say "Hello, my name is Poop, and I'd like to talk to you today about why Bruce Jenner is still a man". That's all completely legal, and if the phone company tried to stop you, they would be breaking the law.

Let's say you and your friends used your telephones to communicate while planning a bank robbery. YOu got caught, went to prison, and got out. You move into a new apartment and try to have the phone hooked up.....as long as you can pay, they have to hook you up. They can't say "Sorry sir, you can't be trusted not to use our phone lines for bad things"

That completely apolitical, apathetic, and unwavering neutral stance on all things at all times is absolutely necessary for public platforms that become integrated into our economy enough to become infrastructure. There are laws governing phone lines, and the electric grid for exactly this reason. Access to these services is completely necessary to function in the economy. Allowing discrimination by a private company, which is not bound by the constitution, undermines the fairness of the marketplace.

The law simply has to catch up to the technology now. Twitter and Facebook qualify as necessary economic infrastructure. So a choice must be made. Are they a platform, or a publisher? That's the question that congress has to decide.

If they are platforms, then they are part of the economic infrastructure and thus have to be fair to all people at all times. The same laws that govern public utilities and communication companies would simply apply to Twitter and Facebook. We don't even have to do anything. The laws are already written.

The other option, is that Twitter and FB are publishers. In that case, they are responsible for everything that they publish. If you published a book that said that I was not a handsome genius, then I would have a case against you for libel. But I would also have a case against your publisher. They would be just as responsible for your statements as you are. So if that's the route Twitter and FB wanna go, then they are legally culpable for *EVERY* instance of slander, incitement, bullying, and defamation that exist in those cesspools of humanity.

What they don't get to do is say "Hey man, we're just a private company conducting our private business in our own way. If folks don't like it they don't have to be on our platform"

Legality aside, there is a moral argument to be made here. America's system of individual freedom and the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has created the ideal environment for these companies to thrive. Part of that system is the unequivocal freedom of speech, and by extension, the freedom of thought. I don't care if these are private entities or if the constitution technically applies. Only a supremely narcissistic dick head would think "It's bad for the government to regulate speech because they would do a bad job. I would do a good job, so it's ok for me to compromise this principle that I supposedly believe in very deeply. I'm smart enough, right enough, moral enough, 'woke' enough, and *GOOD* enough to censor speech in a way that works and is good for everybody"

It makes me sick that people who think like that are actually getting rich in America.

I hope Jack Dorsey gets AIDS and Zuckerberg wakes up with terminal cancer tomorrow.

I mean that. I really really do.

tl;dr. Try to make your point in 10000 words or less please. I don't need hypothetical situations outlined in detail. Just get to the point.

[Poopadoop]

Also, when you start your argument about twitter by talking about a phone call, you're getting off on the wrong foot.

[TheSpoonald]

Also, when you start your argument about twitter by talking about a phone call, you're getting off on the wrong foot.

no, I'm not

[Poopadoop]

If someone sets up 'right-wing-looney-posts-only.com' and bans anyone who isn't expressing right-wing views, they're not breaking the law.

[TheSpoonald]

By the way, I looked into that Navy Seal guy that caused Oskar to get all that sand in his vagina. For anyone interested in sorting out the truth from the bullshit, here is the truth.

Navy Seal guy is currently on trial. He is alleged to have done some bad things, but is entitled to the presumption of innocence. If he is guilty, then the system is working exactly as it should. He is under arrest, he has entered a plea, and he is entitled to a fair trial. None of this is in dispute.

The guy that runs the place where the defendant is being kept - the military equivalent of a prison warden - has placed unusual restrictions on this particular defendant. The warden has wide latitude on this subject, and may not technically be breaking the law. However, the defense has some strong points as well.

The guy claims he is forced to remain in uniform during unusual periods of time and is entirely denied access to civilian clothing. He is also restricted to an area without a proper cafeteria and is forced to live out of vending machines and convenience store food. If this is true, it is a violation of his 6th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

The guy also claims that he is not allowed unsupervised access to a phone. Some kind of guard has to be standing over him at all times while he uses a phone in a public area. The presence of the guard denies him the ability to have a private conversation. Therefore he is literally unable to conduct a privileged conversation with his attorney. This would be a violation of his 5th amendment right to due process.

It doesn't matter how heinous the man's crime may be, no citizen should ever be denied these rights. Period. End of discussion.

Oskar claims that Trump "intervened". That's a really crummy way to put it. Trump exercised his power as commander-in-chief to overrule the prison warden and allow the Navy Seal guy to have the exact same accommodations as every other prisoner facing a military court marshal.

That's all Trump did....enforce the constitution. He didn't let the guy off the hook. He didn't pardon him. He definitely did not "intervene" in the case. He simply stood up for the right to a fair trial. In Oskar-land, that means Trump is indirectly condoning child-murder. WTF??

Oskar....if this guy is such a monster....wouldn't you *WANT* him to have a fair trial? Trump just nullified legitimate claims that this guy might have to an appeal. Why does that bother you?

[Poopadoop]

By the way, I looked into that Navy Seal guy that caused Oskar to get all that sand in his vagina. For anyone interested in sorting out the truth from the bullshit, here is the truth. ...

Can't find any confirmation of what you wrote after this. The best I can find is the warden had a hard-on for this guy, not much more.

Also, Trump claimed he was intervening owing to the guy's 'past service'. So, if the guy wasn't a 'hero' then Trump would be ok with his civil rights being abused?

Something not quite adding up here.

[Poopadoop]

If I go on a cooking forum and start talking about how to build your own spaceship out of tin cans, I'm a retard and should be banned. I can't then take them to court and say 'they're cooking only talk rule is unfair. waah, I'm a snowflake.'

[Poopadoop]

Further you can say dumb shit on twitter/youtube/facebook as well, there's just certain lines you're not allowed to cross. My understanding is you don't get instantly banned by tweeting 'arrrarggghg!! MAGA"!, but if you tweet 'arrrrrghgggh! Kill the ____" you get a temp-ban and a warning. If you break the rules three times you get a perma-ban.

If you lack the self-control to follow the rules three times, then you can't complain when you get banned.