Cable Forum
Page 15 of 31 « First 511121314 15 1617181925 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33710979)

Mick 05-12-2022 18:45
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
I have to say the Biden team requesting certain right wing accounts censored over the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, during a Presidential election, Actor James Wood considering legal action, not against Twitter, as they’re protected by Section 230, but government led agencies, who are not, could be in clear breach of the 1st Amendment requesting Twitter silence certain views.

Damien 05-12-2022 19:15
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36141264)
I have to say the Biden team requesting certain right wing accounts censored over the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, during a Presidential election, Actor James Wood considering legal action, not against Twitter, as they’re protected by Section 230, but government led agencies, who are not, could be in clear breach of the 1st Amendment requesting Twitter silence certain views.
If it's the Biden campaign doing it, who weren't in power anyway, wouldn't be in breach. Especially if they complained but didn't use any threats.

If the White House did it then maybe but again it depends if it was a request or not. Political campaigns are always complaining to the media about coverage for example but that doesn't amount to using state power to silence someone.

Hugh 05-12-2022 20:10
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36141268)
If it's the Biden campaign doing it, who weren't in power anyway, wouldn't be in breach. Especially if they complained but didn't use any threats.

If the White House did it then maybe but again it depends if it was a request or not. Political campaigns are always complaining to the media about coverage for example but that doesn't amount to using state power to silence someone.
Both Biden’s campaign and the White House asked for tweets to be removed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/twit...2-12?r=US&IR=T

Quote:
Twitter in 2020 granted requests from both President Donald Trump's White House and candidate Joe Biden's campaign to remove content, according to a thread published Friday by independent journalist Matt Taibbi.

Pierre 05-12-2022 21:47
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36141252)
You literally do not read posts do you? I certainly did not equate "Katie Hopkins to a neo-Nazi"
Well it was in the same post, who in your reply to me were you referring to then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36141225)
People like Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon may be posting again
Quote:
Never knew neo-nazis were your thing, takes all sorts I guess.

ianch99 05-12-2022 22:44
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36141288)
Well it was in the same post, who in your reply to me were you referring to then?
God, this is tedious.

I said:

Quote:
Other notable unbanned are Andrew Anglin, one of America’s most notorious neo-Nazis. The creator of the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer who had been banned from the social media platform for nearly a decade.
A neo-Nazi, got it yet?

I also linked to a Daily Mail article where they think people like Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon may be unbanned and posting again.

Not neo-Nazis, understand?

Ramrod 06-12-2022 11:55
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
A decent explanation of the sequence of events:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...-emails-story/

ianch99 06-12-2022 13:02
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Here's a good example of Musk unbanning someone who really should not have a platform on social media:

Andrew Tate Is Back on Twitter. Here's Why He's Still Banned Almost Everywhere Else

Quote:
Andrew Tate is back on Twitter. After first being banned from the platform in 2017, the social media personality -- who's been banned from most other platforms for misogynistic comments -- had his Twitter account restored on Friday. He's since amassed 1.5 million followers.

The short story is that 35-year-old Tate is a self-help personality who revels in misogyny. Purporting to extoll wisdom to men that helps them "escape the matrix," Tate has falsely claimed that women bear some responsibility for being sexually assaulted and that they have no "innate responsibility and honor."

After social media platforms blocked him, a spokesperson for Tate told Bloomberg: "Banning Andrew Tate from these platforms might seem the answer, but it isn't that simple. Removing Tate's voice doesn't allow for a kinder hate-free society."

That's not how TikTok sees it.

"Misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated on TikTok," a company spokesperson said. "We've been removing violative videos and accounts for weeks, and we welcome the news that other platforms are also taking action against this individual."

Says Roose: Tate is an "example of what these [social media] regulations have been put in place to address."
Others may want everyone, including impressionable children, to hear this kind of bile:

Quote:
Back in 2017, he was kicked off Twitter when, criticizing the #MeToo movement, he said that rape victims "bear some responsibility" for putting themselves in a position to be assaulted, a false claim that seeks to exonerate the perpetrators of violence against women. Speaking about married women who make money via OnlyFans, a subscription service known for sexually explicit content, Tate said they owe their partners money since they're a man's property. Explaining why he'd never let a woman drive his car, he claimed that women "have no innate responsibility or honor."
but I for one, do not and he is just one of many ...

Pierre 06-12-2022 17:05
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36141319)
Here's a good example of Musk unbanning someone who really should not have a platform on social media:

Andrew Tate Is Back on Twitter. Here's Why He's Still Banned Almost Everywhere Else



Others may want everyone, including impressionable children, to hear this kind of bile:



but I for one, do not and he is just one of many ...
There's just as many left wing, CRT, Antifa, Trans activist nut jobs on there as well. What's your point?

ianch99 06-12-2022 17:42
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36141335)
There's just as many left wing, CRT, Antifa, Trans activist nut jobs on there as well. What's your point?
Which of these "nut jobs" has Musk unbanned recently? Again, if you read the posts, you would know what my point is.

Pierre 06-12-2022 18:24
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36141337)
Which of these "nut jobs" has Musk unbanned recently? Again, if you read the posts, you would know what my point is.
They weren’t banned, that’s the point. Twitter was happy let the left-wing nut jobs on Twitter, but summarily banned anyone on the right. All he is doing is redressing that anomaly.

I’ve read your posts.

You want people you don’t like banned. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) work that way. As long as they are not breaking the law ( or site rules) by what they post, anyone should be free to post anything.

Hugh 06-12-2022 18:35
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36141339)
They weren’t banned, that’s the point. Twitter was happy let the left-wing nut jobs on Twitter, but summarily banned anyone on the right. All he is doing is redressing that anomaly.

I’ve read your posts.

You want people you don’t like banned. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) work that way. As long as they are not breaking the law ( or site rules) by what they post, anyone should be free to post anything.
Andrew Tate was breaking Twitter’s Site Rules

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...witter-account

Quote:
He was permanently suspended from Twitter in 2017 for violating its terms of service but reportedly had snuck back onto the platform using different accounts.

Pierre 06-12-2022 18:49
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36141340)
Andrew Tate was breaking Twitter’s Site Rules

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...witter-account
Yes, well Twitter played fast and loose with their site rules. Banning Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson etc for matters of opinion, yet taking no action against those threatening to Murder and Rape JK Rowling.

I’m sure Musk will revise the site rules so that as long as the law is not broken, people will be able say what they want, and that will be a good thing.

Out of curiosity what rules did he break, the article you cite does not say.

Mr K 06-12-2022 20:16
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Who needs social media when you've got CF?

Has Mr Musk made a bid for the site yet ? ;)

ianch99 06-12-2022 20:49
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36141347)
Who needs social media when you've got CF?

Has Mr Musk made a bid for the site yet ? ;)
He can't afford it :)

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36141339)
They weren’t banned, that’s the point. Twitter was happy let the left-wing nut jobs on Twitter, but summarily banned anyone on the right. All he is doing is redressing that anomaly.

I’ve read your posts.

You want people you don’t like banned. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) work that way. As long as they are not breaking the law ( or site rules) by what they post, anyone should be free to post anything.
Again, your reading fails to match reality. I said people who post hateful and damaging content should not be given a platform to do so. You may be content with men proclaiming women bear a responsibility for being raped and are a man's property, but I am not.

Pierre 06-12-2022 21:03
Re: [Updated] Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal back on
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36141354)
I said people who post hateful and damaging content should not be given a platform to do so
Define that.

Tell me who decides what that is

Tell me who decides who polices that.


Three easy questions.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:24.
Page 15 of 31 « First 511121314 15 1617181925 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.