Twitter passes rules to ban specifically Project Veritas and similar
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
Pretty sure project veritas was conspiratorial trash. Whether or not they deserved to be banned, I do not know...
censorship...we all lose with censorship...
You just showed how little you know about Veritas. You can't trust what the media says about them. They have a vested interest in making Veritas look bad. Veritas is THE investigative journalism today. Every MSM is trash.
Did you know that Veritas has won every single lawsuit from and against the media? If Veritas was conspiratorial trash, how could that be?
Not only that, but the media has had to retract/correct stories on Veritas over 350 times...
It’s odd when you guys complain about one corporate entity being unfair to another. Isn’t this that laize
Not sure you got the point? There may always be one corporate entity being unfair to another...but this censorship by high tech and so there is a bit of a difference it appears to me. GM & Ford are suppose to be in competition, but should Ford commercials be censored?
Just a corporation using its rights. Do you want to infringe on their sacred rights?
would that be similar to a smaller company not baking a cake? ...and again this is "censorship", not using its rights
Well baking a cake we know was not allowed. This is censorship of a privileged entity dictating speech. Personally, I think small companies should be able to have more freedom...like allowing them to not do what they don't believe...whether a cake or a Catholic hospital not wanting to do abortions...which should be a state decision anyway. just as I think there should be freedom of speech. If Twitter wants to allow even more idiots to post things absent any background for one side...okay, just let those on the other counter. This is nothing but control...and as you imply Libertarians want less control. To pretend that this is anything other than censorship is dishonest. High tech and the left have many connecting dots showing a desire for more control whether overt or through censorship
They were booted for repeatedly violating the TOS. That’s not censorship. Project Veritas agreed to those TOS when they signed up to post on Twitter.
Now if you want to make a case for how Twitter applies those TOS, then yeah, because Twitter leaves far worse up for viewing.
I'm unaware of the terms of service on the cake example. There was no refusal to serve only to not decorate the cake differently than previously completed. I'm also unaware those terms of service Veritas violated that denies freedom of speech. Anyway, the cake appeared to force a mom and pop shop to decorate in a certain manner rather than an issue with refusal to serve a cake similar to all the other cakes and the Veritas is censorship which is something the left used to support. There is nothing good to come out of the Veritas censorship...which by the way I have very little background on. Any with an eye to see should be concerned with the control sought in all aspects of our lives. Never before has there been such blatant attacks on our freedoms...freedom of the 1st attack...freedom of 2nd attack and freedom of EVERYTHING with the rampant spending,inflation, lockdowns and firings. This quest for power and control has never been approached in such a fashion so needlessly.
Or maybe project veritas could not violate the TOS that they agreed to when they joined Twitter. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with their ban, but a private company deciding what’s best for them isn’t censorship.
I feel the same about the cake thing too. At the end of the day, the owners outed themselves as bigots, but it was their shop and they can also deny business to whom ever. Are they censoring the couple they denied the cake to? No. They could buy a cake somewhere else. Just like project veritas has other ways to get their message out.
Not sure, but thought Twitter had special privileges other large companies don't as a form of speech for all. Violation of that speech for all might put them in jeopardy...but somewhat ignorant on that. Thinking several states are challenging it. Somewhere I thought there was concern of a monopoly at play due to censorship. However, I'm not well versed in that area and doubt I could find that info possibly due to being censored.
The TOS were positioned to target Veritas specifically. It is censorship because they don't want the stories that Veritas does to get out.
If true, in your opinion, should project veritas not have to abide by the TOS?
Doesn’t Twitter have property rights? Is the government gonna force Twitter what to do at the end of a gun?
A company has the right to do whatever it wants with its property including not publishing anything it chooses to according to current right wing ideology. I’m not right wing, so I won’t defend this. I’m just pointing out how silly it is to get up in arms about this when your number one issue is property rights.
I thought and again I could be wrong...but thought there were special privileges allowed due to it being a forum for all. I don't remember the law that allows them that, but thought something was in place and violation of that law I thought placed them towards a monopoly. I'm sure there is something out there, but it too may be censored? Anyway, my memory can't recall the specifics but thought there was something along those lines. If I'm worng I'm wrong but seem to recall reading it somewhere...
PV had to be silenced because it made Democrats and the poisonous Democrat media look bad. It’s simple!!
Section 230, which gives them protections from liability. If they want to be a publisher, which they are by censoring different points of view, they shouldn’t also get protections and privileges from the government.
Thank you. I couldn't recall the specifics. Sometimes I need a little nudge .
Reading what you wrote I now recall the publisher point.if 230 were repealed, many/most sites would just stop allowing user posts, creating less competition, and helping the big $ sites dominate easier.
and in the end, speech reduced.
Last edited:
I get what you’re saying but in this specific case, isn’t the 230 protection intended to protect the Twitters, Facebooks, etc from liability so that they can offer an open forum to allow differing ideas and dialogue? If they utilize that protection but then don’t offer the service they claimed to qualify for 230, isn’t that an issue? That being said, I don’t know all the fine print of 230 so maybe I’m missing something
well, there is no special certification or qualification for 230.
protection is for all websites and users of the sites when theres content posted by someone else.
the one thing that matters in 230 court cases: the content in question (if its created by someone else, the hosting site cannot be sued over it (frivolous suits) ).
consider here as an example.
gbi shares those protections.
but, gbi is also still free to create their own content policy and moderate as they choose.
peegs for example, was notorious for having a quicker ban hammer.
the slimy politician approach seems to be: wanting to tell gbi & peegs how to run their business.
the slimy politician says they are trying to defend speech... but in reality, it is a backdoor grab for more power and control over businesses.
Last edited:
Usually seem very eager for everybody to live under the rule of big business except for handpicked instances.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Can you imagine Paint walking to midcourt to spew on Clingan
- Latest: Schmedly_Whiplash