ADVERTISEMENT

About Twitter

Lest anyone thinks I'm defending Twitter's actions please allow me to put that to rest. I deplore what Twitter does. My argument is Twitter belongs to the people that own Twitter, not those who wish to access it. As such if they want to forbid conservative or libertaian speech on their property I don't think the government should compel them to do otherwise. In a free society asshats get to behave like asshats
In this case, this is private sector vs private sector. The only government involvement here is the SEC trying to stop Elon from the purchase. So....this is exactly what you want and what we are rootong for.
 
In this case, this is private sector vs private sector. The only government involvement here is the SEC trying to stop Elon from the purchase. So....this is exactly what you want and what we are rootong for.
Yes, I’m afraid my comments have been a little misleading. Mixed my metaphors, so to speak. I do not agree with those conservative voices that have wanted the government to “do something,” punish Twitter for being unfair. As far as I’m concerned Twitter can be as unfair as its owners want it to be as long as it is a private entity. I don’t like what Twitter does. So I think it would be cool to watch the free market go into action and see Musk buy it out and change its methods. That’s exactly how it should work in a free society.
 
Yes, I’m afraid my comments have been a little misleading. Mixed my metaphors, so to speak. I do not agree with those conservative voices that have wanted the government to “do something,” punish Twitter for being unfair. As far as I’m concerned Twitter can be as unfair as its owners want it to be as long as it is a private entity. I don’t like what Twitter does. So I think it would be cool to watch the free market go into action and see Musk buy it out and change its methods. That’s exactly how it should work in a free society.
I'm curious to where to draw a line of when government is involved. Twitter was obviously taking direction from the Democrats. When a private company is doing the political bidding of a party trying to control the governemnt at what point is the private sector merged with government? And, if every other industry is regulated by government why is Twitter any different, than Texaco, BP, Hollywood, Verizon, ect... ect....?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: davidallen
I'm curious to where to draw a line of when government is involved. Twitter was obviously taking direction from the Democrats. When a private company is doing the political bidding of a party trying to control the governemnt at what point is the private sector merged with government? And, if every other industry is regulated by government why is Twitter any different, than Texaco, BP, Hollywood, Verizon, ect... ect....?
I’m the wrong guy to answer that question. I’m a libertarian, philosophically anarchist, so I don’t want government regulation of any of those entities. Now, before anybody climbs on their high horse let me say I’m also a realist that recognizes my anarcho-capitalism is utopian and is not going to happen. But it’s hypocritical for me to argue who should be regulated and by how much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulsaaggieson
I suppose it’s because I’ve never participated on Twitter that I don’t understand what the fuss is all about.

I admit it tickles me to see Elon Musk throw everything into turmoil, but that’s because I’m a natural born contrarian that loves to watch as smug people who think they control things get slapped around a little bit, get their carefully planned world thrown off it’s axis as it dawns on them maybe they aren’t the godlike creatures they had convinced themselves they had morphed into.

I imagine even @davidallen would admit Twitter has engaged in serious censorship of Republican/conservative/right wing opinions. Still, the libertarian in me struggles with right-wing demands that the government “do something” to rein in this horrible censorship; because Twitter, as I understand it, is privately owned, is not an official government entity, is private property. And being a true libertarian I don’t want government stepping in to control private enterprises, not even ones that are engaged in practices I find repugnant.

And so I ask my right-leaning friends, have you really been harmed by Twitter’s censorship? Is there anything happening in the world that you don’t know about? Aren’t there countless other avenues from which you have learned about events and opinions? I can’t think of anything that Twitter has been able to suppress, no matter how hard it has tried. It might even be argued that the scandals Twitter creates by trying to bury news and opinions backfires significantly, making seemingly minor issues blow up into major news.

Like I said, I have never “done Twitter.” So in all likelihood I’m missing the greater point. But I must say as much fun as it is to watch left-wing loonies lose their composure at a potential threat to one of their favorite entities, it seems to me to be a multi-billion dollar tempest in a teapot.

Maybe someone can straighten me out.
What right wing opinions have they censored, Dan?
 
What right wing opinions have they censored, Dan?
I think most people would agree that the anti-mask, anti-vaccine, school closings, etc. during the Covid scare came from the right-wing, and those voices were stifled on Twitter. I think the vast majority of anti-war opinions in Ukraine are coming from libertarians and moderate liberals like Tulsi Gabbard. And those voices have been purged by Twitter. The right-wing newspaper that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story got squelched by Twitter.

But my point with this thread is right-wing and libertarian opinions have not gone unspoken just because Twitter censored them. There have been multiple outlets for those people to voice their opinions.
 
I suppose it’s because I’ve never participated on Twitter that I don’t understand what the fuss is all about.

I admit it tickles me to see Elon Musk throw everything into turmoil, but that’s because I’m a natural born contrarian that loves to watch as smug people who think they control things get slapped around a little bit, get their carefully planned world thrown off it’s axis as it dawns on them maybe they aren’t the godlike creatures they had convinced themselves they had morphed into.

I imagine even @davidallen would admit Twitter has engaged in serious censorship of Republican/conservative/right wing opinions. Still, the libertarian in me struggles with right-wing demands that the government “do something” to rein in this horrible censorship; because Twitter, as I understand it, is privately owned, is not an official government entity, is private property. And being a true libertarian I don’t want government stepping in to control private enterprises, not even ones that are engaged in practices I find repugnant.

And so I ask my right-leaning friends, have you really been harmed by Twitter’s censorship? Is there anything happening in the world that you don’t know about? Aren’t there countless other avenues from which you have learned about events and opinions? I can’t think of anything that Twitter has been able to suppress, no matter how hard it has tried. It might even be argued that the scandals Twitter creates by trying to bury news and opinions backfires significantly, making seemingly minor issues blow up into major news.

Like I said, I have never “done Twitter.” So in all likelihood I’m missing the greater point. But I must say as much fun as it is to watch left-wing loonies lose their composure at a potential threat to one of their favorite entities, it seems to me to be a multi-billion dollar tempest in a teapot.

Maybe someone can straighten me out.
Verizon and ATT are a private companies. Do you believe they should have the right to choose to not allow conservatives to use their network? What about ICANN? Should they be allowed to restrict liberals from using DNS registration? My belief is that there are services that are ubiquitous for communication and its the governments responsibility to ensure that those ubiquitous platforms are available to all citizens. Otherwise, they should break up twitter via anti-trust laws as they control well over 80% of the instant broadcast messaging marketplace and thus have a virtual monopoly on that communication type.
 
I'm curious to where to draw a line of when government is involved. Twitter was obviously taking direction from the Democrats. When a private company is doing the political bidding of a party trying to control the governemnt at what point is the private sector merged with government? And, if every other industry is regulated by government why is Twitter any different, than Texaco, BP, Hollywood, Verizon, ect... ect....?
I read this and thought you’d find it interesting.


 
I think most people would agree that the anti-mask, anti-vaccine, school closings, etc. during the Covid scare came from the right-wing, and those voices were stifled on Twitter. I think the vast majority of anti-war opinions in Ukraine are coming from libertarians and moderate liberals like Tulsi Gabbard. And those voices have been purged by Twitter. The right-wing newspaper that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story got squelched by Twitter.

But my point with this thread is right-wing and libertarian opinions have not gone unspoken just because Twitter censored them. There have been multiple outlets for those people to voice their opinions.
You are correct with the message still got out. The problem with that is the message was held completely is echo chamber of one political party. In this case Republicans. I point this out as it has been the arguement of just about everyone here that we are living within our own echo chanbers. If ideas are being censored then it stifles public debate. One could start arguing that each side is censoring the other and creating artificial echo chambers to go along with the ones we created ourselves. This only exacerbates the issue. We don't need to make it worse than it already is on purpose. At the same time I am.not going to tell people what to publish. Twitter allows the sharing of that information, like other social media outlets do. Its one thing to publish a view, it is another to censor it.
 
I read this and thought you’d find it interesting.


The same same thing was happening in the Holy Roman Empire with the princes dictating who and how the king acted. The king was more of a political figure holding different ideas together. Eventually the princes realized they were more powerful than the king. Princes then fought about protestant v catholic ideology which will tear the empire apart.

Historically this would match the ideas of the authors. I don't disagree with their analogy, and fear what comes next. Historicaly it doesn't bode well.
 
I think most people would agree that the anti-mask, anti-vaccine, school closings, etc. during the Covid scare came from the right-wing, and those voices were stifled on Twitter. I think the vast majority of anti-war opinions in Ukraine are coming from libertarians and moderate liberals like Tulsi Gabbard. And those voices have been purged by Twitter. The right-wing newspaper that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story got squelched by Twitter.

But my point with this thread is right-wing and libertarian opinions have not gone unspoken just because Twitter censored them. There have been multiple outlets for those people to voice their opinions.
Well, the first specific thing you mention is tulsi gabbard. I google searched about her getting banned on twitter and this came up:



Plus, she doesn't seem real reliable, tbh. She seems plainly to still be on Twitter. She also says Zuckerberg, thats Facebook. He's a robot and a menace.

Romsney's pretty hard in her. Treasonous?

 
Well, the first specific thing you mention is tulsi gabbard. I google searched about her getting banned on twitter and this came up:



Plus, she doesn't seem real reliable, tbh. She seems plainly to still be on Twitter. She also says Zuckerberg, thats Facebook. He's a robot and a menace.

Romsney's pretty hard in her. Treasonous?

Can't stand any D and can't stand most R's- they're peas in a pod. But Tulsi is 100 percent right on these issues- she's anti war which is easy and FB and twitter have been pure scum.

Anyone disagrees with her on these is a pure idiot or scumbag
 
Well, the first specific thing you mention is tulsi gabbard. I google searched about her getting banned on twitter and this came up:



Plus, she doesn't seem real reliable, tbh. She seems plainly to still be on Twitter. She also says Zuckerberg, thats Facebook. He's a robot and a menace.

Romsney's pretty hard in her. Treasonous?

Tulsi recorded this just for you, @Syskatine:


 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000
Tulsi recorded this just for you, @Syskatine:


After 911 I remember we'd recover a trove of al qaeda stuff and it would always include videos of speeches on vhs tapes. I remember thinking those people must not have it on the ball if they had to circulate videos in lieu of written materials.
 
I don't do videos, dan. Kliff's?

Wouldn't it be nice if our country would read instead of watching videos? I think a country's collective iq is inversely proportionate to its literacy.
That’s weird. You posted a video from Ms. Gabbard but then said you don’t do videos. But, okay, the Kliff’s version is she said she loves you.
 
That’s weird. You posted a video from Ms. Gabbard but then said you don’t do videos. But, okay, the Kliff’s version is she said she loves you.
I would probably love her, too. I'd take her and AOC out on a sailboat for a week.
 
I would probably love her, too. I'd take her and AOC out on a sailboat for a week.
Your choice of words reveals more about you than you might know. You “would probably” love her, too. In the spirit of her Hindu religion and in the Christian commandment to love one another and in the Aloha spirit of the Hawaiian islands from whence see comes she has said she loves you unconditionally. And yet by saying you “would probably” love her back you display you have conditions, requirements she must fulfill before you will endow her with your love. Tell me, what are those requirements? What would Tulsi have to do to “earn” your love?
 
Your choice of words reveals more about you than you might know. You “would probably” love her, too. In the spirit of her Hindu religion and in the Christian commandment to love one another and in the Aloha spirit of the Hawaiian islands from whence see comes she has said she loves you unconditionally. And yet by saying you “would probably” love her back you display you have conditions, requirements she must fulfill before you will endow her with your love. Tell me, what are those requirements? What would Tulsi have to do to “earn” your love?

Satisfy me that she's not a malevolent influence.
 
I don't do videos, dan. Kliff's?

Wouldn't it be nice if our country would read instead of watching videos? I think a country's collective iq is inversely proportionate to its literacy.

Sorry but our public education is to busy teaching wokeness, critical race theory and grooming children for the alphabet community to increase the reading level of the population. After all it's far easier to indoctrinate and manipulate a population that can not read.
 
Read this.

And this:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Alpha Woke
I’m surprised most days by the stuff you put out into the world.
I'm not. He's an idiot.

The slow would perhaps buy your attempt to twist Mr. Freemans quote to mean he does not value Black History Month when his quote actually suggests it isn't sufficient, in fact we need more focus on integrating black history into our understanding of American history. Not sure if you understood that or are just weak at manipulation.

Uhhhh, dave? You OK? Watch this clip of Morgan Freeman discussing Black History Month. This is where the quote came from.



Now maybe you can tell us WTF you think you're talking about.

It stands on it's own and is entirely consistent with what I said. You'd have to point out where it isn't....

Since I suspect you didn't bother to sniff out your bullshit via the video clip, here's the transcript to point it out to you....

MIKE WALLACE, CBS`s "60 MINUTES": Black History Month, you find...

MORGAN FREEMAN, ACTOR: Ridiculous.

WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: You`re going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: I`m Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isn`t one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I don`t either. I don`t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until...?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I`m going to stop calling you a white man. And I`m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You`re not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I`m saying?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT