I think I'm too dumb to understand what this means beyond "right wing accounts got banned" lol
Let-wing accounts that got banned also are by and large less influential than the right-wing ones.I think I'm too dumb to understand what this means beyond "right wing accounts got banned" lol
So right and left wing accounts both bot banned but it's worse for the right before they banned more influencian accounts?Let-wing accounts that got banned also are by and large less influential than the right-wing ones.
So right and left wing accounts both bot banned but it's worse for the right before they banned more influencian accounts?
Thank you for clarifying.
Trump will never be allowed back on Twitter, even when he wins the presidency in 2024.
Twitter says Trump ban is permanent, even if he runs in 2024
Former President Trump’s Twitter ban is permanent, even if he runs for president again in 2024, a top company official said Wednesday.During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Twitter…thehill.com
That is illegal iircTrump will never be allowed back on Twitter, even when he wins the presidency in 2024.
Twitter says Trump ban is permanent, even if he runs in 2024
Former President Trump’s Twitter ban is permanent, even if he runs for president again in 2024, a top company official said Wednesday.During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Twitter…thehill.com
No, why would it be? It's a company that's permanently banned someone from doing business with it. That's not unusual.That is illegal iirc
A social media platform banning a way for a presidential candidate to get information outNo, why would it be? It's a company that's permanently banned someone from doing business with it. That's not unusual.
There's nothing illegal about that though. Like, cite me the law or court ruling that says otherwise, or news report on it. I think you are getting it confused with political figures not being allowed to block constituents from their twitter if they use it to announce things as an office holder.A social media platform banning a way for a presidential candidate to get information out
It isn't illegal, but it should be. The fact of the matter is that Twitter is a platform where the majority of people communicate; if you aren't on on Twitter, your ability to reach people is sorely hampered when compared to those who are. By selectively banning people from their platform, Twitter is controlling the public discourse to a significant degree. In short, due to their prominence, they have defacto power over freedom of speech.There's nothing illegal about that though. Like, cite me the law or court ruling that says otherwise, or news report on it. I think you are getting it confused with political figures not being allowed to block constituents from their twitter if they use it to announce things as an office holder.
There's nothing illegal about that though. Like, cite me the law or court ruling that says otherwise, or news report on it. I think you are getting it confused with political figures not being allowed to block constituents from their twitter if they use it to announce things as an office holder.
You don't seem to understand what being a common carrier entails. If they are a common carrier, they become obligated to not only host Trump, but also Pro nazi videos, KKK recruitment tweets, probably ISIS recruitment videos (though I doubt ISIS could sue them about it).On the other hand, saying that it should be illegal is another thing entirely. Twitter and big services like it should be common carriers.
No, it's very different. The rule about politicians not blocking people depends on them using their twitter account to do policy announcements, and people have a right to hear policy announcements. But the reverse, that companies are required to broadcast government policy announcements, doesn't apply. Honestly, that's getting too close to compelled speech for me to be happy with such a rule just for government people.The same rule that barred politicians from blocking people on Twitter when they use the account to make statements, should unquestionable make it illegal for Twitter to ban him.
Frankly, Trump should have Twitter in court over this.
You don't seem to understand what being a common carrier entails. If they are a common carrier, they become obligated to not only host Trump, but also Pro nazi videos, KKK recruitment tweets, probably ISIS recruitment videos (though I doubt ISIS could sue them about it).
No, it's very different. The rule about politicians not blocking people depends on them using their twitter account to do policy announcements, and people have a right to hear policy announcements. But the reverse, that companies are required to broadcast government policy announcements, doesn't apply. Honestly, that's getting too close to compelled speech for me to be happy with such a rule just for government people.
Yes, that is exactly what I want.You don't seem to understand what being a common carrier entails. If they are a common carrier, they become obligated to not only host Trump, but also Pro nazi videos, KKK recruitment tweets, probably ISIS recruitment videos (though I doubt ISIS could sue them about it).