Why are you commenting on Twitter if you don’t have an account?
You said Twitter has Terms if Service that they follow, and that’s why they took the actions they did against Trumps campaign. I brought up Ayatollah’s tweets, to show that Terms of Service mean nothing to Twitter. Even Jake Tapper called them on it. How is that irrelevant?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt…but besides ok writing, you’re an idiot. Your content is just incoherent babbling, and useless analogies. You’ve been owned in this discussion. Who said you’re Twitter police? Such a moron.
And for the record, you started this discussion too. Remember “Biden is a pedo”!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was responding to Sy barite about “social media”
companies like Facebook (which I have) and Twitter (which I don’t have) when he asked if I have a problem with what they did.
Companies being plural, not singular, dumbass, and refers to all companies in that information medium. You brought up Twitter to push theatre conversation off on another tangent. So me stating I don’t have Twitter is a separate direct response to you.
While not a lawyer I actually understand the major components of business contracts as I regularly deal with them and approve much of what goes in them when they become tailored for specific customers. And that concept of a terms and services agreement (the little box) is common across virtually every service platform. If a dispute ever comes up, a court of law will simple look at the T&C’s and whether it was agreed upon. They will simply see if you signed the agreement and it was our obligation to read it first so you cannot claim “I didn’t know” or “I didn’t read it”. You questioning that simple known fact indicates that you are oblivious to that just like you seem to be oblivious to most thing in life. Although, in your defence, I guess you can take the position that you lack the mental capacity to understand what you were signing and under the care of a custodian and care giver.
You seem to have in your mind that “free speech” means people can say or print or publish whatever they want. That is just not true. Hate speech is illegal, inciting riots is not protected be free speech, if someone makes a false and harmful statement (verbal or written), the the person or company on the receiving end can sue for harm (slander or libel), etc. Many things are excluded. But more importantly is that media companies, which now includes social media platforms, have the right to
publish or
not publish what they want. The real “freedom” is their freedom to choose what they allow to be published before it goes out or in the case of social media companies they are free to set policies of what is allowed on their platform which means the are free delete posts after the fact.
With the ending of the Freedom Doctrine that law, to force right and left to be balanced, was gone. This now means right-wing only needs to push right-wing agenda items and left-wing only needs to push left-wing agenda items. That is the playing field you don’t see. Hate the game, not the player. I hate the game, but I can at least see the playing field while you are busy staring at the birds in the sky. If you hate the game then force a change of the rules and put the Freedom Doctrine back and face the consequences (bye bye Info Wars, and others and open all media (including social media) to more government control and regulations)
Trump just filed a lawsuit against Twitter and Facebook. If he loses, the courts would agree with my terms and services position whether directly stating that or indirectly by saying the first amendment doesn’t apply in this case. The actual legal experts commenting on this lawsuit seem to generally agree that he’ll lose since the first amendment is aimed at governments and not companies. Although, this “lawsuit” is just the dog and pony show while he raises more money and continues his grift.