left-wing counter-protestors in San Francisco demonstrate their stance on free speech

[Leonhard]

I do too. Twitter is a private company - not the government - and it can allow or ban anyone it wants.

However, if it begins practicing censorship it becomes a publisher and not a platform. And a publisher is responsible for content.

So people who are upset by Twitter's censorship should just wait for an opportunity to sue it for libel - because there are plenty of opportunities for that.

I honestly don't think laws are suitable for dealing with situations like Twitter, Facebook or Google yet. We're literally trying to apply the rules governing newspapers to them.

[seanD]

As far as I know Twitter has made efforts to close down bot-networks, fake click-farm driven accounts, accounts promoting sexism, racism or violence, and the like. I have not heard of someone promoting purely Christian content being banned simply for that.

I was even very careful to spell out what it was that I supported Twitter doing.

Now can we move beyond the personal attacks. Do you have a list of purely Christian users, posting stuff about Christianity, apologetics, missioning or Pro-Life material that were banned, because the news didn't talk about that. It talked about violent protests, and I've already in this thread condemned the violence several times.

You said you support twitter banning "Fake News." That doesn't mean anything because "Fake News" is subjective. I'm not familiar with the reddit situation, but I'm very familiar about the ban waves occurring on facebook and twitter, and I can tell you, they are banning conservatives for conservative viewpoints. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. Maybe I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're ignorant about the subject and who they're actually banning and why, but I doubt it. You support the ban because they're conservatives.

[Ronson]

I honestly don't think laws are suitable for dealing with situations like Twitter, Facebook or Google yet. We're literally trying to apply the rules governing newspapers to them.

True. It is an evolving subject.

IMO - It's one thing for a private company/individual to censor "objectionable" content. If Twitter employs a filter to censor four-letter words, that's not a precedent but is widespread practice to avoid trouble with authorities. However, when it decides to censor based on other principles then it is a publisher. It is dictating content and becomes responsible for the content.

[CivilDiscourse]

So you made it up.

Civil discourse indeed...

Made up? No. Reasonable conclusion.

[seer]

Twitter users have no legal freedom of speech on Twitter. The platform is free, and wholly owned by the owners; Twitter users exist solely at the pleasure of those owners.

Said owners could ban every single conservative on the planet from posting to Twitter, and there wouldn't be a damned thing those users could do about it (WRT to being banned). No court in the world would consider that any violation of the users' first amendment rights had been violated.

Right, if they are going to curate content then we need to remove 230 protections and treat them like any other publisher. I'm good with that - how about you?

[Whateverman]

Made up? No. Reasonable conclusion.

Not reasonable in the least. There are several much-more plausible explanations for the attack, other than thinking the protesters shouldn't be allowed to protest.

You know this, too.

[Whateverman]

Right, if they are going to curate content [...]

Curating users doesn't do that.

[CivilDiscourse]

Not reasonable in the least. There are several much-more plausible explanations for the attack, other than thinking the protesters shouldn't be allowed to protest.

You know this, too.

Go ahead and share why they attacked protesters they outnumbered greatly.

[Whateverman]

Go ahead and share why they attacked protesters they outnumbered greatly.

They disagreed with the protesters.

I mean, seriously, if you need that kind of rhetorical hand-holding, you're probably too young to be posting to this web forum.

[CivilDiscourse]

They disagreed with the protesters.

I mean, seriously, if you need that kind of rhetorical hand-holding, you're probably too young to be posting to this web forum.

So, because they disagreed, they decided to attack them, beat them, and shut down thier protest. Sounds like they don't believe they should be able to protest/voice thier views.

Thanks for your input.

[Whateverman]

So, because they disagreed, they decided to attack them, beat them, and shut down thier protest.

We don't know they decided to shut down the protest. All we know is that the attack happened.

How old are you? You're making assumptions that are neither reasonable nor logical, possibly because you simply want to avoid admitting your mistake. Seems a little... young.

[seanD]

A black guy in the group of protesters apparently got his tooth knocked out by the leftist marxists that attacked them. All about that Black Lives Matter.

[mossrose]

Not reasonable in the least. There are several much-more plausible explanations for the attack, other than thinking the protesters shouldn't be allowed to protest.

You know this, too.

What are those reasons? Citations, please.

[CivilDiscourse]

We don't know they decided to shut down the protest. All we know is that the attack happened.

How old are you? You're making assumptions that are neither reasonable nor logical, possibly because you simply want to avoid admitting your mistake. Seems a little... young.

It is entirely reasonable that attempts to attack a group is to shut them down. You just seem to be making excuses for them.

[Leonhard]

You said you support twitter banning "Fake News." That doesn't mean anything because "Fake News" is subjective.

No, a fake news site is very clear and simple. They're consistently posting things that are false. I'm not talking about Fox News, National Review or Breitbart here. I'm talking about dozens of accounts springing up out of nowhere all of them posting nearly simultaniously about let's say "Joe Biden wants to raise taxes to 82% when he takes office." That would be an example of something that is false on quick inspection. Typically these are part of bot networks, or click farms. I have no idea who are doing all of these accounts but it is stuff like that I support downing.

It is also vaccine misinformation campaigns, nazi propaganda and other weird accounts I've seen.

I'm not familiar with the reddit situation, but I'm very familiar about the ban waves occurring on facebook and twitter, and I can tell you, they are banning conservatives for conservative viewpoints. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. Maybe I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're ignorant about the subject and who they're actually banning and why, but I doubt it. You support the ban because they're conservatives.

I like you seanD, I'm interested in hearing your viewpoints. But I don't understand why you want to launch full thruttle into personal attacks in all the conversations I have with you. Honestly I don't know what you have against me.

Could you give me a couple of examples of some conservatives who were banned from Twitter for their conservative viewpoints, and what it was that they said?