Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
from the you-want-to-talk-censorship? dept
If you want to see what censorship is, let’s take a look at Nigeria banning Twitter indefinitely in response to Twitter removing a tweet by President Muhammadu Buhari that it believed violated the site’s policies. The tweet was read to be a threat to brutally kill those engaging in attacks on public infrastructure, in particular police stations in Southeast Nigeria. Buhari’s tweet harkened back to the way dissenters were dealt with during the Nigerian Civil War:
“Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Nigerian Civil War. Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand,” Buhari wrote in the now-deleted tweet, referring to the brutal two-year Nigeria-Biafra war, which killed an estimated one to three million people, mostly from the Igbo tribe in the eastern part of the country between 1967-1970.
While the announcement that Twitter would be blocked does not reference its decision to remove that tweet, it instead says the ban is because of “”the persistent use of the platform for activities… capable of undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence.” I honestly don’t understand what the hell that means. Basically, it seems like a twisting of the usual nonsense we see from some corners of the internet, who insist that any moderation of anyone is somehow an affront to their rights, and doubly so when it’s a government official.
But, sorry, no one has a right to demand a private company host their speech.
Apparently, part of the process of blocking Twitter in the country involved requiring every social company to get a license from the country’s broadcast regulator:
The government gave no details on how the ban would work in practice, or any explanation of how Twitter had undermined Nigeria’s corporate existence.
Its statement, which was released on Twitter, also revealed that the national broadcasting regulator, NBC, has been told to start “the process of licensing all OTT [internet streaming services] and social media operations in Nigeria”.
That certainly sounds like a prelude to an even harsher crackdown on social media in the country, which has been one of a few growing tech hubs in Africa.
Separately, though, various telcos have been told to block Twitter, but apparently people are still getting around the block, leading the Nigerian government, in a moment of true patheticness, to insist that it will prosecute anyone who gets around the ban. That doesn’t seem at all desperate.
It’s also interesting, given that in 2019, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey talked about the importance of Africa, and even announced plans to live there for an extended period of time in 2020 (a plan that was put on hold because of the pandemic). Of course, a couple months ago, Twitter announced that it’s African offices would be based in Ghana, and not Nigeria. So you have to wonder if that also played a role in Nigeria’s sudden hostility to the company. Though, of course, the reasons Twitter mentioned for why it chose Ghana maybe should have caused the Nigerian government to pause before rushing in to silence the entire website:
As a champion for democracy, Ghana is a supporter of free speech, online freedom, and the Open Internet, of which Twitter is also an advocate. Furthermore, Ghana?s recent appointment to host The Secretariat of the African Continental Free Trade Area aligns with our overarching goal to establish a presence in the region that will support our efforts to improve and tailor our service across Africa.
Still, this is what actual censorship is. A government stepping in and blocking speech in retaliation for other speech. Not that the US is any better, of course. It was less than a year ago that President Trump tried to do the same thing with TikTok and WeChat.
Filed Under: blocking service, censorship, free speech, muhammadu buhari, nigeria
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet”
The GQP wishes that we were more like 3rd world counties. But the are trying.
Re: Re:
Grr,….’countries’ and ‘they’
Government mandated ‘licensing’ for social media, now what does that remind me of…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It means that the platform took sides, and became a publisher.
Re: Re:
Poor Koby. Still doesn’t know what a TOS is.
Re: Re: Re:
Koby also still doesn’t know the difference between the inside of someone’s house and a "public space".
Or at least pretends not to know this. It says a lot about someone that they prefer to come off as incredibly stupid rather than carry a fact-based argument.
Re: Re:
in a moment of true patheticness, to insist that it will prosecute anyone who gets around the ban
Do you support this stupid fucking policy as well?
Re: Re:
If you get your wish, nobody, net even 8kun will be protected because they all take sides. That means we would be back to letters to the editor, where almost all such letters are `never considered for publication.
Re: Re:
Here we are finally, Koby cheering on real censorship. The mask of dishonesty has been ripped off and we see the truth, censorship is just fine if it’s done to an entity he doesn’t like.
Re: Re:
I assume he’ll be calling for the censorship of Techdirt next.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I don’t support it. And you’re missing the point. We probably agree on the politics of Nigeria, even though I don’t follow Nigeria at all, or know the issues. However, if you don’t want a SplinterNet, then this was a dumb move by twitter. If you want an open internet, then the platform has to stay apolitical. Instead, my prediction remains on-track.
Re: Re: Re:
Twitter is not the entire fucking Internet, you goddamned dumbass.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So according to you, Twitter should let fundamental Muslims slug it out with fundamental Christians, while allowing racists and bigots to attack their chosen targets, as that is what remaining apolitical means. Such a course is suicide for Twitter, as the last users it will have left
Re: Re: Re:2
…will exemplify the “Worst People” Problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don’t support it, why was that not the first thing you said then?
The sheer dishonesty in repeatedly decry censorship and then use it to prop up your argument is mindboggling, and that implies you are just fine with censorship when it suits you. You actually shot down your own argument.
If you want an open internet, you leave it to the site-owners to decide who they want to associate with, but no, you want to ram unwanted speech down their throats like any good little totalitarian who’s unpopular. How about you go and read the Roblox-article here on TD and then tell me that they shouldn’t be allowed to moderate their site as they see fit. Apolitical my ass.
You are a dishonest simpleton Koby.
Re: Re: Re:2
He isn’t a simpleton. He knows that saying “I want Twitter to let bigots post all the bigoted bullshit they want under the guise of ‘politics’ ” will make him look bad. He hints at it — “being ‘political’ will lead to a splinternet, so best to be apolitical” — without ever actually saying it. The problem for Koby in these discussions is simple: We can see that subtext.
He’s fine with bigots forcing their way onto platforms and spreading their bullshit everywhere. If he wasn’t, he could answer One Simple Question with a direct and intentional “no”. But since he’s never done that…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The mainstream right and far right (not that there’s much difference between the two these days) view appeals to the notion of fairness as a tool, nothing more than a means to get a foot in the door. Whenever they’re in a position of power, they never hesitate to stack the deck against the left and silence voices they disagree with, see Joel Kaplan at Facebook, the NFL owners attacks on BLM protests, the bludgeoning of opposition to the war in Iraq and so on, things the likes of Koby are just fine with. The freedom of speech conservatives support is the freedom for them to say whatever hateful rubbish they please wherever they please, and the freedom of everyone else to either shut up or agree.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a humiliation fetish?
Not kink shaming, but it looks an awful lot like you get off on being pubically humiliated.
Re:
Yes or no, Koby, and I really want you to fucking answer this one: Does a platform choosing to moderate speech justify the censorship of that entire platform by a government body?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn’t matter if it’s justified or not. Getting political, instead of being a neutral platform, is still falling for the trap that will lead to the SplinterNet. To me, it depends on what you want. If you desire a global and open internet, then it’s a dumb idea. If you want a fractured system of localized government-approved communication monopolies, then keep cheering on twitter’s actions.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no, Koby: Do you belive, under the guise of “being apolitical” or “neutral”, that every social media service should allow the posting of content such as Klan propaganda and advertising for anti-queer “conversion ‘therapy’ ” regardless of whether the broader userbase wants to see/associate with that content? Please note that “well that isn’t political content” isn’t an answer because you know goddamned well that it is (or can be interpreted that way). “Users can just hide it” also isn’t an answer.
Explain how one social media service out of many deciding not to host content such as the content discussed in this article is a move towards a “splintered Internet”.
Then explain, without referencing any law in any country, what makes you believe someone is morally and ethically deserving of a spot on a privately owned service that they don’t own and isn’t a public forum. Please note that Twitter is not a public forum, no matter how much you and your troll brigade comrades say otherwise. Also note that legally, no one is entitled to a spot on Twitter — including agents of any government.
Then explain, also without referencing any law in any country, what makes you believe someone deserves — morally and ethically — to post whatever the fuck they want on that same service even (and especially) if their speech can cause real and genuine harm to others.
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You know for a fact you won’t get an answer, mostly because I am sure I can see the smoke from here of a paradox forming in the attempt to answer them questions without answering them or by deflecting them and attempting to maintain a veneer of smugness and superiority.
We all know the real answered should be No one has any right to post on any platform without the owners permission and following rules of said platform, if you want to see where this leads look at China where if you post things the government doesn’t approve or like you suddenly can’t buy coffee, get a job, get a loan, buy a house.
Re: Re: Re:2 Bigoted?
Is it considered bigoted for Nigeria? Why do you a half a world away get to decide the ethics of other nations? Do you are all realize that you are acting like a modern colonialist trying to force your ethic on everyone else?
I don’t agree with the Nigerian stance on homosexuality but I’m not Nigerian. To abuse global market power to force Nigeria to conform to my morals is immoral.
Re: Re: Re:3
My comment is aimed at Koby and his usual stances on speech vis-á-vis moderation on Twitter and the like, not at the Nigeria situation. But in re: that situation, I believe no government should have the power to make any interactive web service host any kind of speech the service doesn’t want to host.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and one more thing: Damn, you really can’t answer a simple yes-or-no question, can you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Getting political"… Everything is political, a platform who purportedly say they are neutral is actually making a political statement with that.
Now, can you explain what choice of social media platform I have if I don’t want to see political posts from assholes extolling how the Nazi’s final solution was the best thing since sliced bread? In your world, no such platform will exist since the platforms will be forced to carry ANY political speech regardless of how repugnant it is.
Regardless, your statement shows that you are for censorship because a platform wasn’t "neutral" or "apolitical".
How can it be open when you force the services to host content they disagree with? The very act of forcing something means it’s not free or open.
So you support totalitarians dictating what’s okay to post on social media platforms then and when the platform disobeys they can be censored.
Koby, do you think it’s okay to force people against their will? Because that’s where your argument finally ends up.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t think he’s going to answer that question…mostly because his actual answer would make him look worse, in so many different ways, than he already does.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want a fractured system of localized government-approved communication monopolies, then keep cheering on twitter’s actions.
As opposed to what? A consolidated system of centralized government-approved communication monopolies?
Yeah, thanks – I’ll stick with Twitter kicking you assholes off its service.
Why not try frankspeech Koby? Perhaps you can critique their ToS, since you’re so familiar with hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getting political, instead of being a neutral platform, is still falling for the trap that will lead to the SplinterNet.
Only for the assholes getting the boot. The rest of us don’t give anything even remotely resembling a shit. It’s like when the asshole at the bar gets kicked out and everyone else goes about their business, happy to enjoy an asshole-free environment.
The problem is assholes, Koby. You, and spoiled little pinheads like you who think that social media owes you something. When you’re paying to use the site, let me know. Otherwise, you’re getting what you paid for.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
Re: Re: Re:
No, you didn’t “fix” that for me. There was nothing to fix.
Yes or no: Does the removal of speech from Twitter prevent that exact same speech from being posted elsewhere?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
False dichotomy.
The definition of censorship just points to censoring, so I’ve linked that for you:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/censoring
Just because you agree with the censorship doesn’t make it not censorship. Hopefully this will help you understand censorship since you seem unable to grasp the concept.
Re: Re: Re:3
Misusing the header functionality of Markdown doesn’t make your point any stronger, you know.
Except it isn’t censorship. If someone were to post “Donald Trump is a wank pheasant” on Twitter and Twitter were to remove that post for whatever reason, absolutely nothing about that act can prevent that someone from reposting that speech on Facebook, Gab, Parler, 4chan, 8kun, YouTube, a Mastodon instance, or basically any other service that accepts third-party speech. How can that someone be censored if they’re not prevented — by threats or acts of either legal troubles or violence — from reposting their speech outside of the one site that said “we don’t want that here”?
You seem to be equating a denial of “free reach” — the imaginary “right” to an audience, to be heard, to make others listen against their will — with censorship. Nobody is entitled to an audience. Nobody is entitled to a platform on private property they don’t own. And being denied the privilege to speak on Twitter isn’t censorship. It’s Twitter showing someone the door.
Don’t come to me with this bullshit again until you can explain exactly what gives anyone the legal, moral, and ethical right to force their speech upon Twitter. If you can’t do that: Stay quiet and sit down while the grown folks talk, you sweet summer fetus.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Tell me, yes or no, since you like inflicting false dichotomies on others – did they remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise?
If yes, then it’s censorship.
Re: Re: Re:5
In regards to my “Donald Trump is a wank pheasant” thought exercise? Yes — but only on Twitter, which means someone can go repost that exact same phrase elsewhere. Don’t fall for the “I have been silenced” fallacy. If you can get banned from Twitter and go elsewhere to say the same speech that got you banned, you haven’t been censored — you’ve been shown the door and asked to GTFO.
Posting on Twitter is a privilege. Having the reach that Twitter can offer is a privilege. Twitter does not and will never owe you a platform or an audience. You don’t actually own the private property (e.g., the servers) on which Twitter runs and Twitter is not a public forum or government entity, so you’re not entitled to shit from Twitter. The same goes for everyone else — including me.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host? Please keep in mind that racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and the word “moist” are all legally protected speech under United States law.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You’ve already been educated before on how you’re lying. This proves your dishonesty is deliberate bad faith.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Show me where I lied.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Stephen T. Stone Has made it clear across the site that he doesn’t want to recognise the long standing definition of censorship no mater how many times it’s posted.
That the censorship is legal in the US and wasn’t here is the issue.
Re: Re: Re:4
I recognize the definition. What I don’t do is agree with any interpretation that says moderation is censorship. If you believe in such interpretations, ask yourself what acts that belief would justify.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
the usa is better in that it has the 1st amendment ,free speech laws and independent judges who will stop the government doing things like banning tik tok.
alot of business,s and tech companys rely on twitter to promote thier products or communicate with customers.
blocking twitter is a negative thing to do in terms of business and the economy.And it sends a message that the government is not welcoming to tech startups or free speech
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
freedom
Nigeria is a private company.
If twitter doesn’t like this, they are free to create their own Nigeria.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: freedom
country*
Re: Re: freedom
Well you tried… sort of.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: freedom
Nope, country works too! A state is an collective municipal body. A company by another name. Counties are themselves companies. Villages are companies. Subdivision/home owners groups are companies.
The statement is accurate.
If Twitter wants to be in Nigeria they follow the local laws or creat their own. Break the law, accept the punishment.
Re:
Twitter won’t necessarily be hurt by any of this. Nigerians — those who use Twitter as their primary Internet communications tool, and those who want to develop social media platforms of their own without government interference — will be hurt by the decisions of the Nigerian government. That you seem to care less about that than you do about taunting Twitter about it is…telling.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The fact that you instantly, and always resort to ad hominems says a lot about you, and nothing about the people you’re pestering with fallacies.
Re:
I didn’t see you express concern about the Nigerian people who will be most affected by the Nigerian government’s new move to control social media, so…just workin’ with what you give me, son.
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
As with the word "censorship" your downfall seems to be your illiteracy.
Re: Re: ad hominem
No. That is not correct.
Here is the definition:
ad hominem hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm►
adj. Attacking a person’s character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
adj. Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
n. To the man; to the interests or passions of the person.
Re: Re: Re: ad hominem
And there you prove me correct and your fellow troll a liar. Nice going.
Well, there’s a thing. For those unaware of the background, Mr Masnick’s article — while perfectly sound in itself — leaves out some details that I suspect most of us might find at least a little bit relevant.
Nigeria had a police unit called SARS — the Special Anti-Robbery Squad — which was notable for it’s high levels of corruption, theft, violence, rape and murder, far more so than even the worst police departments in the USA. The #EndSARS movement — very much the Nigerian equivalent of BLM — protested strongly against the unit, which was finally disbanded by the government late last year, following the Lekki Gate Massacre.
#EndSARS was largely organised on Twitter and had the public endorsement of much of the internet — including Twitter and its CEO Jack Dorsey, who provided a unique Twitter emoji for the campaign, as well as promoting donations to the movement via BitCoin.
This, more than anything else, is what lined up Twitter and the open internet for a kicking by the Nigerian government. While there’s little doubt that a general crackdown was going to happen sooner or later, getting directly involved with Nigerian politics more or less instantly guaranteed that Twitter would be the very first head on the chopping block — and so it is proven.
I’ve no doubt that Twitter’s involvement was very much the right thing to do. I’ve also no doubt that popping your naughty bits in a hyena’s mouth, just before giving it’s testicles a good, hard smack with a metal ruler, is something that’s guaranteed to have some form of consequences.
I’ve every salutation for Twitter, here — and every condemnation for the government that’s used this as an excuse for censoring it’s citizens. For the Nigerian people who must now live with the outcome, all I can offer is my sympathy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Except it isn’t. Because he completely and utterly refuses to call censorship censorship if it’s being done for the Left reasons, or to conservatives.
he’s just another partisan hack.
Re: Re:
If a homophobe gets kicked off Twitter for using the F-word — the bad F-word, that is — how does that prevent the homophobe from going right to 4chan or 8kun and using the word there?
Please note that if your answer is anything but “it doesn’t”, your answer is most likely bullshit. Please remember before you answer that posting on Twitter is a privilege and nobody has a right to “free reach”.
Maybe the problem is that Twitter, Facebook etc. act like 18th century trading companies where the are basically governments unto themselves.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Twitter deserved the suspension. They seem to delight when it comes to kicking conservatives off their platform and now the same thing has happened to Twitter. Only, they were kicked out of Nigeria for deleting the tweet of their president. Just what did they expect?
I’m not saying that what Nigeria was right, only that it was about time that these social media companies were on the receiving end of the same punishment they have been handing out to their users. I’m just calling it a sense of cosmic karma.
Social Media companies have the right to protect their users from harmful content but these companies have continued to expand their definition of what they consider harmful to such a point where they are now banning users for content their moderators just don’t like.
I just remember what someone once told me, that it all comes back around, sooner or later. It’s the universe balancing itself out. Twitter thought it could play that "ballsy" role on the president of another country and they got their hand bitten.
Re: Re:
Do please give us examples where conservatives have been kicked off twitter and for what speech. If you can’t your argument kinda falls apart. Also, if you think that Twitter’s suspension in Nigeria was justified doesn’t that also means that Twitter is justified to kick people off their platform if they break the TOS? What did the people expect to happen when they broke the TOS?
Yeah, the "tit for tat" asshole reasoning.
Yeah, we’re gonna need some examples here that proves it’s systematic otherwise the above is just hooey.
The rest of us who live in the real world knows that what goes around seldom comes back around. The above statement also means you think censorship is just fine as long as it’s done to an entity you don’t like.
Something you should learn to practice is to be consistent, instead you let your emotions decide what’s right or not. You are upset because you feel conservatives are unfairly targeted by social media (with no facts at all to back it up though), but you are just fine when a government actively censors a service and cheers it on.
Re: Re:
Twitter deserved the suspension. They seem to delight when it comes to kicking conservatives off their platform and now the same thing has happened to Twitter.
No conservatives have been kicked off Twitter for "conservative" views. It’s just that silly ignorant people in a bubble only looked at how their friends were kicked off and insisted that Twitter wasn’t treating people outside their bubble fairly. That’s wrong. Plenty of non-conservatives have been kicked off.
No one is kicked off for their views. People are kicked off for violating the terms.
And, yes, there is a MASSIVE fucking difference between being kicked off a private platform, and the government shutting down an entire website. If you can’t see that, you’re not a "conservative," you’re an ignorant fool.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, one is partisan censorship, and the other is justice for being a partisan censor.
Re: Re: Re:
Please explain how Twitter — a privately owned service that does not operate as a public forum or government entity — can censor someone. Remember that posting on Twitter is a privilege, not a guaranteed legal right, and people who get banned from Twitter can repost their speech elsewhere.
Also, please point out examples of the speech for which conservatives were banned from Twitter in a way you feel is unfair or biased towards them.
Also also, please explain how that speech is “conservative speech”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Did you not read the defintion of censorship? Or did you just fail to comprehend it? Here it is again. Maybe repetition will help.
Make sure you read the bolded part this time!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Why when you didn’t even manage to read the first: A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material
Now that I pointed that out, explain why the word authorized is in that sentence.
Re: Re: Re:3
I read it. So what.
Please explain how Twitter — a privately owned service that does not operate as a public forum or government entity — can censor someone. Remember that posting on Twitter is a privilege, not a guaranteed legal right, and people who get banned from Twitter can repost their speech elsewhere.
Also, please point out examples of the speech for which conservatives were banned from Twitter in a way you feel is unfair or biased towards them.
Also also, please explain how that speech is “conservative speech”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
By removing things people said from it. It’s hilarious the mental gymnastics you go through to pretend this isn’t censorship.
Re: Re: Re:5
Can the speech deleted by Twitter be repeated elsewhere by the same person who initially expressed it? If the answer is “yes”, Twitter hasn’t censored anyone. If the answer is “no”, I can’t want to see you explain that one — preferably with citations.
I don’t believe moderation is censorship largely for one specific reason: I know what acts that belief would justify.
Were I to believe moderation is censorship and Twitter was guilty of censoring someone any time it moderated legally protected speech, I could then justify acting in ways that would call for Twitter to “stop censoring people”. That would mean I could justify calling for, say, the compelled hosting of speech — no matter how offensive I think it is — under the guise of wanting “free speech on Twitter” or “a neutral public square” or some other horseshit reasoning.
But I don’t believe moderation is censorship. I believe moderation is the intentional curation of a community, no matter its size. I also believe censorship involves any attempt — successful or failed, governmental or civilian — to actively infringe upon the rights of free speech and association, such that someone feels they cannot speak at all. Being denied a space on a privately owned service that no one has a legal, moral, or ethical right to use is not censorship. Being booted from that space for violating the rules set down by the owner of the property on which you had the privilege of speaking is not censorship. Or, as the copypasta goes:
When Twitter gives someone the boot for anti-queer speech, Twitter isn’t saying “you won’t” — or “can’t” — “say that anywhere”. It’s saying “we don’t do that here, and since you refuse to stop doing ‘that’, we’re showing you the door”. No effort has been made by Twitter to stop the bigot from going to Gab or Parler or some alt-reich shitpit Mastodon/Pleroma instance and saying the same speech what got the bigot banned from Twitter. No effort ever will be.
So before you toss the definition of “censorship” back in my face and shittalk me for not sharing your broad-ass interpretation of it, ask yourself the important questions: What actions would/could you justify with your belief of “moderation is censorship and it must be stopped”? And what consequences would those actions have on people who aren’t you — especially people who are already marginalized in society?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
As soon as it’s deleted it’s censored. No mater how locally it happens to be enacted.
If Brooklyn bans my sign I can go to Manhattan? Yes
If Twitter tosses me off I can go to 4 8 whatever. Yes
If Chicago bans GTA you can get it the next town over.
It’s still, localised, censorship.
The moderation types would convince more people if they called it what it is and explained how it’s legal:private property, private rules.
Re: Re: Re:3
We’ve tried that, you dipshit. The ignorant people who believe moderation is censorship still somehow think they have an absolute unassailable right to post on Twitter. At a certain point, we can’t fix ignorance — we can only mock it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
… -> too funny.
It worked for me. Private property is private. Censor away.
But I understand your fear from a historical level now.
Your afraid the courts will not mandate open use if you call it by the c word.
Re: Re: Re:5
First off: Please learn the difference between “your” and “you’re”. (Hint: Only one of them is a contraction of “you are”.)
As for what I fear? I’m not afraid of whatever you mean by “open use”. I’m afraid that assholes like you and Koby and cynoclast — assholes who believe moderation is censorship because it feels like being told “you can’t say that anywhere” even thought it isn’t — will keep pushing that lie so goddamned hard that you will eventually get enough people on your side who will push lawmakers for the unconstitutional act of compelling services like Twitter to host speech those services don’t want to host.
I’ve asked this of Koby, and I’ll ask it of you. Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host? Keep in mind that “legally protected speech” can cover bigoted speech such as racial slurs and anti-queer propaganda, so saying “but those can be exceptions to the rule” isn’t an option for you here. Neither is “well if they’d just stay apolitical” or anything along those lines, since the speech I just mentioned can be considered “political speech”.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“ Please learn the difference between “your” and “you’re””
Ah, a person who picks on autocorrect and auto type. Very impressive.
“… will push lawmakers for the unconstitutional act of compelling services…”
You focus on using one term over another doesn’t help convince anyone.
Thanks to another user who didn’t try to focus on linguistic usage, and explained the property rights issues I’ve changed my opinion.
The question is not censorship or moderation.
It’s if a company should be required to host speech they disagree with.
Here I generally say no.
Though is see concerns in how this could turn problematic as well. Such as cable companies dropping channels.
Generally private property private rules.
“ I’ve asked this of Koby, and I’ll ask it of you. Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?”
You’ve asked me too. It’s one of the reasons I changed my mind on 230.
I said then and say now, private property private rules.
Censorship is legal on private property.
I’m no more inclined to call it moderation than you are to call it censorship.
We both have the same premise and we both agree on the same results. It’s legal.
And should remain so. I don’t agree with the reason (you on association and me on property rights); we reach the same conclusion though.
If the pro camp engaged Republicans and libertarians with the property concerns they would turn more than using association concerns.
Re: Re: Re:7
Your insistence on bringing up the “property rights” canard is getting both annoying and ridiculous. The freedom of association doesn’t depend on property rights — it depends on the government being unable to make a person or private entity associate themselves with specific speech (or other people/entities). The government might be able to provide spaces where no legally protected speech is off-limits, but it can’t force me to enter those spaces/listen to whomever is speaking. Some jackoff could be yelling racial slurs on a public street corner; that doesn’t entitle him to my attention.
You really don’t fucking get it, do you. My issue isn’t with a potential infringement of property rights — it’s with a potential (and in the eyes of “moderation is censorship” assholes, a perfectly justifiable) infringement of the right of association. That such an infringement would also double as an infringement of property rights is coincidental.
You can keep trying to do the “iT’s AbOuT pRoPeRtY rIgHtS!!1!1” bullshit. But it is, at best, a parallel argument to the actual argument, which is entirely about the government forcing an association between offensive-yet-legal speech and private entities that want no association with such speech. Hell, this isn’t even a partisan matter — I’m all for Gab and Parler being able to moderate left-wing speech off their respective services if that’s their (dumbassed) decision. This is about whether you believe such speech should be forced onto people regardless of whether “property rights” comes into play. So yes or no, and leave property rights out of the fucking equation: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into associating with legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to associate with?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
A good chunk of the country doesn’t care about your association concerns. If they did pro 230 would have won the argument long ago.
Why ignore a method that could find agreement with what you want.
Freedom from association is bullshite.
“ You really don’t fucking get it, do you. My issue isn’t with a potential infringement of property rights — it’s with a potential (and in the eyes of “moderation is censorship” assholes, a perfectly justifiable) infringement of the right of association.”
You don’t get either I don’t chive a fuck about “right of association”, only property rights.
“ That such an infringement would also double as an infringement of…” your freedom from association is coincidental.
If you want to convince the lawmakers and their voters who are against 230 that there’s a value in it use something they care about like property rights.
Coincidentally or not, the concerns line up. There’s “the left”’s ticket to ending the anti-230 movement.
I don’t care about your concern and you don’t care about mine. But we both see 230 as important.
Like you, I’m all for kicking Republicans off Twitter. I didn’t care about who got kicked off or why. I cared about not calling it what it is and not giving legitimate cause.
“ Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into associating with legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to associate with?”
No, a privately owned interactive web service is private property and therefor should not be compelled into hosting content they don’t like.
But I can’t leave property rights out. It’s the basis for my belief.
Because “… government forcing an association between offensive-yet-legal speech…” is not a concern for me. It happens all the time every day. In god we trust? Bullshite. Under god? Bill. United? Not remotely.
But we can agree with “…private entities that want no association with such speech….” Because private entity, private company, private service, private property. You’ll never convince me, and a good chunk of this population, of all parties, in an inalienable right to or from association.
People in general, including here, default to lumping anyone who voted for Trump as alt-right, q, whatever. Protection Democrats, conservatively liberals, libertarians, Republicans as a whole.
I’m not republican, not alt-right, conservative and not part of your little groupings.
Public classing, association, is commonplace, rampant, and generally ignored. Funny the same people yelling about freedom from association are the same ones who tend to paint with a mile wide brush when it comes to anyone who disagrees with them.
You have a tool to swing the opinion. Is recognition of a parallel argument that bad if it get’s you to your goal?
Re: Re: Re:9
I’m sure you won’t mind being forced to listen to Klan propaganda blaring outside your window all day every day, then. After all, if “freedom from association is bullshit”, you surely won’t mind being associated with the speech of a racist terrorist organization.
And that’s why your argument is bullshit. If “freedom of association is bullshit”, do you believe it’s okay for people to force me into being their audience so long as I’m on a street corner or in a public park?
I would like to think they’d care about not having the government force them into listening to the inane ramblings of a QAnon dickhead — even if Marjorie Three-Names is a member of Congress.
Abandoning one concern for the other doesn’t accomplish shit — and the broader concern of the freedom of association (a guaran-fuckin’-teed right enshrined in the godfuckingdamned Constitution of the motherfucking United States of America) should be one that even the most hamheaded GOP lawmaker could get on board with.
I care about the property rights concern. But I care far more about the right of association, which can be affected regardless of property rights.
…says someone who was A-OK with repealing or “fixing” 230 until a few weeks ago.
You’re not — because I don’t believe in booting Republicans from Twitter, I believe in booting bigots and assholes from Twitter. Not that the two groups don’t have more overlap than both of them would care to admit, but still.
And yet, you continue to refer to moderation — to the intentional curation of a community — as “censorship”. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining, Lodos.
[facepalms] God…fucking…dammit, Lodos.
I refer you back to my first two paragraphs of this reply.
Cool, I’ll go see about setting up a giant-ass Black Lives Matter protest in your front yard without your permission, then.
…okay, facetious bullshit aside, I’d still be an asshole for doing that to you. You have every right to refuse being associated with speech that others would force upon you — regardless of whether you agree with it and regardless of where the attempt to force your association happens.
You could’ve fooled me, given the way you whine about censorship-that-isn’t like they do.
Neither of those things has to do with the other. Like, at all. I can think Democrats are generally a bunch of spineless shitbuckets who can barely find their asses with a map and a flashlight (and that’s on a good day), but none of that means I believe they should be forced to associate with anyone — or that anyone should be forced to associate with them.
It is if it’s the only argument and it ignores the broader, connected-directly-to-the-fucking-Constitution argument. You wanna argue about property rights? Go right ahead. But I’m not going to help you — not unless you recognize that the freedom of association is as important as the property rights issue upon which you’re staking all of your pro-230 beliefs. If you think someone has to own property before they can practice their freedom of association, you’ve a long way to go before you can ever — and I mean EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER — consider me your ally in any way.
…oh, and I bet you think I forgot about the “in God we trust” shit, didn’t you? I didn’t — and for once, we’re on the same page: References to God or any other religious deity shouldn’t be on money or in the Pledge of Allegiance (which is a bullshit practice in its own right but that’s a whole other argument). But considering how we can’t get by without money and no one is legally forced to recite the Pledge, I’m willing to overlook that shit as a minor inconvenience. (And support anyone who seeks to undo that explicitly religious bullshit.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“ blaring outside your window all day every day, then”
Not much I can do between 7am and 2200 Sunday through Thursday. 6am-0200 Friday and Saturday.
Other than ask politely to turn it down.
Not sure how what a neighbour would reflect on me other than by tarnishing the community as a whole. But there’s nothing I can do about it.
“ do you believe it’s okay for people to force me into being their audience so long as I’m on a street corner or in a public park?”
Yes, but you aren’t forced as the audience. If you don’t like it go elsewhere.
“…inane ramblings of a QAnon dickhead — even if Marjorie Three-Names is a member of Congress.”
Or a progressive fool like AOC three names, democrats Ben if she is a member of congress.
“ Abandoning one concern for the other doesn’t accomplish shit”
I didn’t say abandon anything. I said you ave an argument that actually concerns them. Ignoring that argument because another one is important to you isn’t going to turn anyone who doesn’t care, or cares less, about that argument.
“… should be one that even the most hamheaded GOP lawmaker could get on board with.” You expect too much from people who support forced association. Such as all the god/religious crap in law and government.
“ freedom of association” doesn’t appear in the constitution:
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text
“ says someone who was A-OK with repealing or “fixing” 230 until a few weeks ago”
Yes. When an issue I cared about was brought up. That issue being property rights.
Censorship is prohibition of access. Private censorship on private property is the very reason I now have changed my position to supporting 230.
On of the few things I hold more important than freedom of expression is freedom to do as thy wilt on my own property. So I don’t intend to be a hypocrite about it I must extend that same belief to Twitter even if I think their choices are occasionally misguided or even down right stupid.
“Cool, I’ll go see about setting up a giant-ass Black Lives Matter protest in your front yard without your permission, then“
In my from yard? No. That’s my private property.
Stay in the public right away I’ll close my windows and go about my business. Until the time noise regulations kick in. Then I’ll call the police for disturbing the peace for a noise violation.
Don’t block my access to the public roadway. Don’t threaten or assault me. We’ll get along just fine then.
“ You could’ve fooled me, given the way you whine about censorship-that-isn’t like they do”
I’ve replied every time someone said so that I am not and will not be a Republican. Censorship is one concern. My belief in strong property rights extends to my beliefs in strong borders. I want less foreign policy and interaction.
So what. That’s about it on parallels.
See, private property rights extend to left wing ideas too: a person’s body is their own private property. That extends to anything that happens on or in it. I don’t want abortion restricted for the same reason I’m against forced vaccination. A person should chose how to care or not care for their own body.
I’m a, literal, card carrying member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, despite not being an atheist. God goddess gods and goddesses should be purged from every aspect of government. Recognition of anything by religious terminology must be banned at the government level.
I disagree with progressives on causes and concern With global warming but I’m all for green life. I want logical restrictions on coal. I want a reduction in oil use. And I want clean electric. I want mandated recycling and fines for failure.
Regulations on all of big energy. Far more than any Republican would ever willing to agree with you.
I demand vaccine passes and heavy restrictions on those who choose not to be vaccinated.
Oh, and I’m anti public censorship. Completely. I see no problem with 5pm porn on cable. Parents have a duty to monitor their children. It’s not the government’s job.
I may share som beliefs but I’m so far opposite on so many issues only a fool would lump me in with Republicans. I vote for people who will champion issues I agree with, and accept that other places I disagree are part of forward moving compromise. Regardless of party.
“oh, and I bet you think I forgot about the “in God we trust” shit, didn’t you? I didn’t — and for once, we’re on the same page: “
I hoped you wouldn’t. It’s forced association. And has continually been upheld as constitutional. If the federal government can force the entire populace to be associated with the Abrahamic god, history’s leading cause of death and it doesn’t even exist?
How could I possibly believe in a freedom from association? The government itself has mandated it!
Re: Re: Re:11
Lodos, why you keep coming back despite being embarassed over and over and over, I will never know. But since you’re still here instead of leaving for “less biased” sites like you said you would…
Who said anything about a neighbor? I’m talking about your front lawn, son. But that’s neither here nor there any more…
That answer doesn’t make sense. It literally can’t make sense. By answering my question with “yes”, you are agreeing with the idea that I can be forced by a speaker into becoming part of their audience so long as I am in a public space. I can’t both be forced into listening and still walk away from the speaker. So yes or no, one more time: If I’m in a public space, does someone else have the absolute right to force me into being an audience for their speech?
Better a progressive fool than a believer in cult bullshit.
You know that’s not true.
After all, I only expect bullshit from you.
“While the United States Constitution’s First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.” — per the Wikipedia article on freedom of association
And there it is — the one line that outs you as a supporter of forced association.
Let’s say, only for the sake of this argument, that you’re right: “Censorship is prohibition of access.” By that logic, if I keep someone who insulted my family out of my home, I’ve censored that dickhead because they no longer have access to my home. By that logic, a barkeeper who kicks out an unruly patron and tells them to never come back has censored the drunken dipshit. By that logic, a Twitter admin who boots a homophobic bigot for saying “queers should be sent to an island to die off” has censored the peabrained bigot.
But herein lies the problem with your logic: Those assholes still have every right to speak their mind elsewhere.
To say “censorship is prohibition of access” is to say “keeping people out of any place where they might speak is censorship”. And since we can both agree that censorship both sucks ass and should be prevented — well, I hope we can, at any rate… — under your logic, keeping people out of any place they might speak is evil and should be prevented. Your logic would destroy both private property rights and the freedom of association — including yours.
And yet, you said “censorship is prohibition of access”. So…mission failed, cap’n.
You said both “censorship is prohibition of access” and “freedom from association is bullshit”. If you believe both of those statements are true, how can you refuse to let someone access your private property for a political protest action — how can you censor someone’s right to speak freely and force you to associate with them — without being a hypocrite about your expressed beliefs vis-á-vis both censorship and freedom from association?
Wouldn’t that act prevent speakers from accessing a public place — or, under your “censorship is prohibition of access” logic, censor those speakers?
Yes, that was part of my point — the freedom of association isn’t partisan.
Well that’s disheartening to hear but—
…okay how can you say you disagree with progressives on global climate change yet suggest a number of actions that progressives would be on board with enacting to curb global climate change
how the fuck does that work, Lodos
how the fuck
Says the asshole who said that they’d call the cops on a political protest happening on public lands only because it happened at a specific time, even though they earlier said “censorship is prohibition of access”.
At best, you’re a right-of-center Democrat (so basically a Republican In Spirit). At worst, you’re bullshitting us for the sake of trolling.
Eh, I don’t see that “in God we trust” bullshit as a direct attempt to make anyone associate with Christianity. I mean, despite the references to God on American currency, the government isn’t forcing Muslims and Jews and atheists to convert into Christians before actually being able to use that money. That would be forced association. So unless the United States federal government says I must be a Christian before I can slap down a twenty dollar bill in exchange for an American flag facemask at Walmart, I don’t give a fuck if that phrase is on the bill.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
“ Lodos, why you keep coming back despite being embarassed over and over and over, I will never know. ”
I’m not embarrassed.
“ Who said anything about a neighbor? I’m talking about your front lawn, son.”
That would be trespassing. If you trespass you may have the cops called, you may get shot. Depends on who the owner is and where you are.
As long as you weren’t violent I’d call the police and ask them to remove you to the right of way.
“ So yes or no, one more time: If I’m in a public space, does someone else have the absolute right to force me into being an audience for their speech?”
Yes in you have no right to not be bombarded with noise on a public sidewalk or park area. Public space, public speech.
No, you aren’t forced to be an audience. Unless they hold you captive, which would be illegal detainment.
“freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech…”
That’s a legal interpretation. Not actual codified law.
The courts determine the intent and actionability. And those interpretations change.
As long as the federal government pretends I put my trust in god there’s no freedom of/from association.
“ And there it is — the one line that outs you as a supporter of forced association.”
How does recognising a private organisation has the right to censor make me a supporter of forced association?
serious questuon as I don’t have a clue how you connect two opposite ideas.
“ By that logic, if…”
Correct
Correct
Correct.
In all cases the person was censored, legally.
“ But herein lies the problem with your logic: Those assholes still have every right to speak their mind elsewhere.”
Also correct.
Localised censorship has no bare Leung outside of the private local. If you toss a dickhead out they can go to the public sidewalk and say anything, legal, they so choose on the sidewalk.
“… bullshit”. If you believe both of those statements are true…”
Because censorship by a private entity is legal. Be it Twitter or my front yard. It’s private property and price owners can censor within the confines of their property to their own desire.
“Wouldn’t that act prevent speakers from accessing a public place …”
Yes. Freedom of speech must be legal. Continue (making noise) after the “quiet hours” kicks in and you’re now in violation of law.
“ yet suggest a number of actions that progressives would be on board with enacting to curb global climate change…”
Parallel intentions. Pollution, be it air, land, water… all have an effect on life.
Again it’s about meeting on effect, despite the cause being different.
“ Says the asshole who said that they’d call the cops on a political protest happening on public lands only because it happened at a specific time…”
Yes. Exactly. Just like CompuServe, my long time favourite platform and at one point my employer, choice is limited by law.
Be it Twitter censoring or CS not. Illegal content must be removed. And I have always agreed with that.
230 protects Twitter, who actively deletes legal content, and CS, who only deleted illegal content.
230 protects both from legal liability if they miss something, are informed of the illegal content, and remove it promptly.
I can host any protest I choose in my front yard. As long as they quite below the stated Db level during “quiet hours”. If I don’t inform them about the regulations I am at fault. If I do, and then call law enforcement, they are responsible.
“… That would be forced association…”
No, that would be forced religion, forced conversion. Our money clearly stats “WE” and therefore I’m associated with a man-god.
“ At best, you’re a right-of-center Democrat…”
Maybe. If you chose right lean on 4 or 5
Issues out of hundreds to be right of centre.
Maybe I’m a far-far left Republican in philosophy. I’ve been told that much.
Given I worked for the Obama campaign twice… I have more left views than right.
I consider myself libertarian. My friends call me a multi-party fluke.
In reality every with-the-Republicans agreement stems from proper rights. From international involvement, to secure borders, to country protectionism, to firearms.
Long before it was corrupted by the far-right I had held the rebellion motto, and spirit, of “don’t tread on me” to be a core of my existence.
Anti censorship is number 2 on my list.
Liberty of property is 1
If I must choose between rights of the owner and freedom of distribution, I’ll accept censorship as the private property right.
Re: Re: Re:13
“Censorship is prohibition of access.” Remember saying that? And you wouldn’t want to be a censor, would you?
That wasn’t what I was asking about.
That was. But hey, since I’ve got it in my head: Wouldn’t my walking away from some jackass on a street corner — my prohibiting access to my attention and time — be censorship? ????
Unless either an actual codified law or a newer Supreme Court ruling overrules that interpretation, it basically is the law.
In that case, I can force you to be my audience and make you listen to every word I ever say, regardless of whether you want to hear it — and you said it’s okay because you believe “censorship is prohibition of access” and “there’s no freedom of/from association”.
Not so fun to see your own words turned against you in ways that would make you the victim of your own asinine logic, is it?
Let’s go step-by-step.
No, they weren’t. Because they weren’t denied their First Amendment right to speak their mind — they were denied the “right to free reach” (i.e., the imaginary right to an audience). You dare to throw the Constitution in my face? Go find any law on the books that says someone is legally entitled, without question, to an audience. I’ll wait.
One: Get your autocorrect fixed.
Two: It ain’t censorship if someone has been denied the right to speak where they aren’t welcome. It’s censorship if they’re denied the right to speak anywhere — including places where they are welcome. Twitter can no more deny me my 1A rights than your sorry ass can.
Censorship involves the denial of one’s ability to use their First Amendment rights. Moderation on Twitter doesn’t do that. A bartender tossing out a drunk fuckhead doesn’t do that. Me telling you to fuck every last conceivable mile of off sure as hell doesn’t do that (no matter how hard I try).
Protesting for political change is legally protected speech. That the hypothetical protestors would be doing it at a time inconvenient to you is irrelevant in this argument — because denying them access to public spaces by calling the cops on them would be censorship under your “censorship is prohibition to access” logic.
Like I said: forced association. You’d be forced to associate with a religious sect you don’t want to associate with. Since that isn’t happening, I don’t consider the use of money with “in God we trust” on it to be a forced association with any specific religious sect (or the Christian religion).
Besides, even if it were a forced association, what the fuck am I going to do — stop using money to pay for things? I’ll take a small-ish “forced association” with a supernatural deity over starving to death in a gutter every day of the week. (And twice on Sundays!)
Ain’t no such thing, fam. Hell, there’s not even an actual “far left” in the United States!
Or you just hid your bullshit well.
I forget where I read this, but I find it a useful reference: “When libertarians talk about individual freedom, silently add ‘to own people’ to the phrase regardless of context.”
Somehow, I’m not the least bit surprised that you care more about property than about human rights. Did watching people burn buildings during riots related to the death of George Floyd piss you off more than the actual death of George Floyd?
You literally said “censorship is prohibition of access”. You can’t therefore believe in “censorship” on private property without contradicting your prior statement — because Twitter prohibiting access to bigots and ne’er-do-wells is, under your logic, censorship.
So once and for all, to settle this shit for good, here is the only question you need to answer — and, really, the only part of this comment to which you need reply:
How can you believe “censorship is the prohibition of access”, “censorship is an evil that should be prevented”, and “Twitter admins should have the absolute legal right to ban both people and certain kinds of speech from Twitter” at the same time?
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
On cash
I did. I can’t remember the last thing is paid for in us cash.
“ Somehow, I’m not the least bit surprised that you care more about property than about human rights. Did watching people burn buildings during riots related to the death of George Floyd piss you off more than the actual death of George Floyd?.
Yes.
The proper response to man slaughter is not to level a city! This is what Christians claim their god did. When sodomites violated the jewish rules of open access he burned the city to the ground.
Sodom wasn’t burned for being evil, it was burned because their residents violated property rights. Lol. There’s those two words again.
” How can you believe “censorship is the prohibition of access”, “censorship is an evil that should be prevented”, and “Twitter admins should have the absolute legal right to ban both people and certain kinds of speech from Twitter” at the same time?”
Because the only thing I hold more important than absolute freedom of expression…
Is the right of a property owner to maintain, manage, dictate, and rule, over their own property.
Question for you:
Are you really so flat out against reaching your goal if your reasoning for getting there isn’t yours?
Because that’s a very Madam Nancy approach.
Ignoring a simple by-the-way on property rights would quickly turn left of Center “rinos” , liberal Republicans, and libertarians to your cause.
Why? Why not accept differing factions can not have the same goal simply because we have different paths to reach it?
The first person to bring up private property rights (may have been you) made me reconsider 230.
There’s a chance here to reach your goal!
I have only ever found three public displays of offensiveness. The Torah, the Bible, and the Quran.
Saying humans cause warming. Annoying, not offence.
Saying White privilege whatever; annoying, not offensive.
A man fucking a goat while sucking a horse? Whatever makes you happy I guess. Sick, disgusting… not offensive.
I was suspended in HS for not saying “under god”.
Or more specifically for explaining to the teacher that “under god” was added during the Cold War to further the draconian christian fight against Agnostic/atheist communists.
My catholic parents had zero intention or interest in standard up for my beliefs.
Back to the article.
Hey, at least Twitter proves to be consistent.
Banned in a country? So fn what?!
Follow the laws where you practice.
Twitter has every right under US law to censor as they choose. This state may have banned the but so what.
China and google.cn, EU take down stay down, Twitter deplatforming a sitting US president.
You operate within the local laws. Or else.
Protest on public property all you want within the limits of law. Step in the street outside of a cross walk expect to be run over.
Yell in front of My home all you want. Step on my lawn and you have one warning! Ignore it and loose a kneecap!
Re: Re: Re:15
“Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense, our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
I don’t condone the George Floyd riots, but I sure as fucking hell understand them. Also: Nobody levelled an entire fucking city, so stop buying into the InfoWars-level conservative propaganda bullshit that says half the U.S. burned to the ground during the riots.
Weird that you would refer to the attempted violent rape of two angels as “violating property rights”, but that seems right in line with your wanting to preserve property over human rights and seemingly humanity in general.
(“When libertarians talk about individual freedom, silently add ‘to own people’ to the phrase regardless of context.”)
Then your entire belief system is predicated on a cognitive dissonance.
You said “censorship is the prohibition of access”. By the logic expressed in that sentence — which you said, might I remind you — any attempt by any property owner to prohibit access to their property is “censorship”. You’ve called yourself “anti-censorship”, which I must assume means you would prefer to prevent censorship from ever happening to anyone. Logically, the two positions can’t exist with one another: You can’t both be against the evils of censorship and still want the owners of private property to have the right to censor any- and everyone.
Either moderation isn’t censorship or you’re in favor of censorship. There really isn’t a middle ground here, not under the logic you’ve expressed.
I’m against reaching a goal based on faulty or incomplete reasoning. The right of people to choose which persons/what speech they will and won’t associate themselves with is vastly more important — and far more applicable to 230 — than your sacred, godly, put-on-a-pedastal-to-worship property rights. If your entire argument for 230 is “property rights”, your argument is faulty and incomplete.
Oh, fuck. You’re a misogynist, too. Wonderful.
Because I would think that those differing groups could agree that the government shouldn’t be able to force services like Twitter — and the users of those services — to associate with speech they don’t want to associate with regardless of your revered-as-fuck “property rights” argument.
If you can’t agree with me that not forcing people to associate with speech/other people is at least equally as important as your venerated “property rights” argument, I don’t give a fuck. But hey, you’ve outed yourself as someone who cares more about property than human rights/lives, so I don’t know what the fuck I should’ve expected.
[facepalm]
Look, I have issues with organized religion, but even I’m not that fucking far gone. So I’m gonna skip the rest of your New Atheist, “all religions are bullshit and should die”, woe-is-me bullshit from now on because it’s largely irrelevant now that I know who I’m dealing with. (Hint: It’s someone who probably thinks the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama was a tragedy because a building was damaged and not because four Black girls died at the hands of a group of Klansmen.)
I’d expect nothing less from someone who considers property to be worthier of protection than people and their civil rights.
Now fuck all the way off, Lodos. E3 is starting and I can’t be fucked to care about you more than I care about Nina motherfucking Struthers.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
The story
Is sodom is a parable on hospitality.
It covers two issues.
First is the care for the poor.
Second is honour in the homestead.
The attempted violation of the angels is what Christians use to condemn all sex.
In context of local law of the time the premise of rape didn’t exist. That’s a side note to the story.
The Jewish concept of domestic hospitality is a far more important aspect of the story, at the time.
Context of the story.
“ Either moderation isn’t censorship or you’re in favor of censorship. There really isn’t a middle ground here, not under the logic you’ve expressed.”
You like to live in absolutes eh?
Let me be clear then:
The only thing more important to me than fighting censorship is protecting private property.
Including the ability of private censorship.
“ Oh, fuck. You’re a misogynist, too. Wonderful.”
Wow, how progressive a reply. Calling out one idiot female makes a person a misogynist
Schumer, the other Dem leader, regularly pisses off his party by looking at compromise. I support compromise.
E3: streaming live! Enjoy.
Re: Re: Re:17
You can’t be against censorship and in favor of censorship at the same time. Do you stand with or against censorship?
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
If you’re against the free speech of moderation, you’re for censorship.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
“ You can’t be against censorship and in favor of censorship at the same time. ”
I’m against censorship.
I respect the legal rights of private censorship property owners to censor on their property.
They’re not mutually exclusive. First is a goal. The second is respect for the law.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
Missing punctuation before I get called on it:
I respect the legal rights of private censorship; property owners to censor on their property.
Re: Re: Re:19
Then you stand for censorship. You’re okay with censorship. You have no issue with censorship regardless of what you’ve said to the contrary. Because as I told you: You can’t be both for and against censorship at the same time.
Either moderation isn’t censorship or you’re in favor of censorship. I don’t care if this is Pride Month — you can’t have it both ways.
Re: Re: Re:20 Re:
“ Then you stand for censorship.”
One can respect and abide by law without agreeing with it.
Or do you only follow laws you agree with?
There are lots of legal thing I think should be illegal; lots of illegal things I think should be legal.
So let’s be absolutely clear:
A property owner has the legal right to censor.
If they chose to do so I consider the platform to be damaged.
There are plenty of forms of moderation that don’t fall to outright censorship. Collapsing, flagging, placarding, partitioning.
I consider all these methods of moderation to be superior.
Accepting the law and rights given by doesn’t mean I have to like or support it. Only abide by it.
Re: Re: Re:21
If you believe censorship is an evil that must be prevented (which I hope you do), you can’t also believe “a property owner has the legal right to censor”. You are decrying censorship and, in the same breath, proclaiming that some people have a legal right to censor legally protected speech and silence people. The logic doesn’t parse.
Moderation either is or isn’t censorship — and if you say it is, you’re supporting censorship when you say “a property owner has the legal right to censor”. (I don’t have to live with that cognitive dissonance; I don’t believe moderation is censorship.) That leaves you with One Simple Question to answer: Do you believe moderation of legally protected speech, no matter the circumstances of that moderation, is the exact same thing as censorship?
Make your reply one word: “yes” or “no”. That alone will say enough.
Re: Re: Re:22 Re:
Now it all makes sense.
“ you’re supporting censorship when you say “a property owner has the legal right to censor”.”
There’s a difference between recognising a right and supporting it.
“(I don’t have to live with that cognitive dissonance; I don’t believe moderation is censorship.) “
Moderation includes censorship (deletion) along with other methods.
See, if you yell in front of my property, or even trespassing on it, I can easily hang a banner that states:
“The comments and actions of these people may or may not represent the beliefs of one or more or all of the residents residing within.
I understand now some things about you I didn’t before.
You approach things as all or nothing.
“ You are decrying censorship and, in the same breath, proclaiming that some people have a legal right to censor legally protected speech and silence people.”
It helps understanding that. It explains why you view all (or most) Trump voters as fringe.
Why all environmentalists must accept all that is said by other environmentalists.
Why you can’t wrap your head around my voting patterns.
I’m willing to accept compromise even on issues important to me.
I respect law. Even law I don’t agree with.
I have far more respect for sites that chose a less destructive method of moderation than out right deletion. Deletion is censorship. There are lesser options available.
You have the right to delete, I acknowledge that right. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with your deleting, purging, destroying, elimination of speech.
Back to protestors on my front lawn. My lawn, my rules. Without disrupting or censoring, I could put out a 3/4 enclosed stage, keeping the speech directional, away from me. I can hang aforementioned banner from the top of the stage.
I could take away the speakers and bullhorn.
And I will demand you fallow those rules and the local laws. If your speech is legal and you don’t intentionally disrupt my personal day, and don’t violate law: have at it. Just clear out before the law says you must.
That’s a limited Liability grant of access.
I could put up a big cube and put the protestors in it.
Hang a sing outside it saying “this group is in here. I don’t like them but I’ve offered them a minimal platform. If you wish to listen to them go inside the cube”.
That’s the real world equivalent of collapsing a comment.
Or I can simply refuse to allow you on at all, thus you’re ability to speak on my property has been censored.
Re: Re: Re:23
You couldn’t leave well enough alone and give a one-word answer, could you, huh. Well, if you want to keep being humiliated… ¯(ツ)/¯
You’ve explicitly said that you believe a private property owner has the right to censor. You call that recognizing a right — I call it a justification of (and thus support for) censorship.
You said you believe moderation is censorship. You never qualified that statement before. Are you backing down on that belief? Because it seems like you’re trying to back down from that belief.
Not everything. Some subjects have a lot of nuance, and I’m willing to look for the shades of grey. But in re: censorship, I am very much an all-or-nothing kind of person because fuck censorship. When I say “moderation isn’t censorship”, I say that because it isn’t.
Having your speech deleted from one place out of a hundred, a thousand, even a million places overall isn’t censorship. Being denied the right to speak on property you don’t own isn’t censorship. Someone refusing to be the audience for your speech isn’t censorship. Nobody has a right to an audience or a platform at the expense of others — and being denied the privilege of an audience or a platform at the expense of others is not the same thing as being denied the right to speak at all.
You come to me with that “moderation is censorship” shit again and I will copypasta that entire paragraph into my reply. And I will continue to do that in future replies until you get the point: Being denied a privilege isn’t being denied a right, and being denied the right to speak is censorship.
On the contrary: I view them as assholes who voted for human suffering so long as they weren’t the ones who had to suffer. That some of the beliefs of some Trump supporters lie on the fringe of the (unfortunately rightward-moving) Overton Window is irrelevant to that fact.
How much compromise you’re willing to accept may be the problem. Accepting compromise on, say, how much to spend on a given political goal is one thing. Accepting compromise on human rights and the prevention of suffering is a whole other ballgame — one you seem unapologetic for playing, given your self-proclaimed libertarian leanings. (“When libertarians talk about individual freedom, silently add ‘to own people’ to the phrase regardless of context.”)
If you’re telling me I have the right to censor other people, you are at a bare minimum saying you support my right to do that — that you support the right to censor. Why else would you tell me I have the right to censor?
And refusing it to anyone for any reason — like, say, someone calling you a turtlefucker to your face — would be to deny someone a privilege, not a right. You wouldn’t be censoring them because they could still go right into the public street and yell about the sexual affairs you had with elderly male tortoises across six continents.
(You sick fuck.)
That would be unlawful imprisonment — you know, an actual crime and an actual infringement of one’s civil rights.
No, it’s been moderated.
One more time: Moderation isn’t censorship. Losing the privilege of a platform to speak on or an audience is not the same as being denied the right to speak. And nobody is guaranteed the right to a platform or an audience at the expense of someone else.
Now please fuck every last infinite mile of off that you fucking can, because dealing with your goddamned ignorance is going to give me a fucking anuerysm.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, literally no one is being kicked off social media for their partisan views, so no it is not "partisan censorship." You’re just so deep in your fucking idiot bubble, that the only people you know are ones who are just as stupid as you who have been kicked off. And you’re completely blind to all sorts of other people who aren’t in your idiot bubble who are also kicked off social media for the same reasons: breaking the policies of the site.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You’re just so deep in your fucking idiot bubble, that I believe you believe this.
You really need to start reading things you disagree with. You act like a cultist.
Here’s a primer: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=filter+bubble
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
A cultist makes fantastical statements about the Big Truth™ but never seem to be able prove that truth with facts.
So, can you give us examples of people and their partisan views that have been kicked off social media?
Or are you all talk and no substance?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
ad hominem
strawman
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/09/twitter-purge-conservative-social-media-personalities-report-losing-thousands-of-followers/
https://thepalmierireport.com/gop-rep-twitter-banned-at-least-60k-conservative-accounts/
https://www.rt.com/usa/458669-twitter-bans-conservative-accounts/
https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/12/twitter-purge-qanon-accounts-conservative/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/shocking-new-study-finds-twitter-censors-conservatives-over-liberals-at-a-211-ratio/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/shocking-new-study-finds-twitter-censors-conservatives-over-liberals-at-a-211-ratio/
https://sputniknews.com/society/202006171079643572-age-of-deplatforming-short-list-of-conservative-voices-muted-by-internet-giants/
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_people_censored_by_Twitter
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/12/twitter-has-removed-more-than-70000-accounts-linked-to-qanon-conspiracy-since-capitol-riots/
This is literally just the first page of DDG results for " list of conservatives removed from twitter"
Hilariously, and proving the point further, none of those appear in a google search of the exact same search. Hell, the only site that even appears in both is forbes, and it’s still different articles, even though they’re from the same day.
DDG returns this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/12/twitter-has-removed-more-than-70000-accounts-linked-to-qanon-conspiracy-since-capitol-riots/
But for some reason google returns this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/01/12/the-extremists-conspiracy-theorists-and-conservative-stars-banned-from-social-media-following-the-capitol-takeover
So it’s totally understandable you might think Democrat run sites aren’t censoring conservatives if you use a Democrat run site to search for that. It’s so on the nose it could be it’s own Onion story.
So let’s just check https://www.allsides.com/ and see which side is being censored. Oh look, it’s the conservative side. Twitter bans them, google hides their censorship with censorship of reporting on censorship.
The funniest thing about discussing this is I’m a registered Pacific Green and never voted for Trump or a Republican. So keep your false dichotomy "thinking" about what "side" I’m on to yourself.
I just refuse to live in a censored filter bubble like you and the other BlueAnons here.
Even Angela Merkle called banning Trump "problematic": https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problematic-and-perplexing-european-leaders-side-with-trump-over-twitter-ban/
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You’re just so deep in your fucking idiot bubble, that I believe you believe this.
I’m not in a bubble. I actually write about all the different kinds of people removed from social media for all different kinds of reasons — and that’s why I know that there is no evidence that anyone has ever been banned for "conservative" viewpoints, and tons of people — especially LGTBQ and other marginalized groups tend to be banned at an even greater rate. Not because of their views, but because of determinations that they violated policies.
So, tell your idiot friends to stop breaking the rules.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Exactly. If you use a service that uses bans and uses content removal for a predefined list of naughty actions, don’t do those actions.
There’s a bit of a problem in not predefining things though.
I remember back to the 90s an old wrestling skit that.went crazy on the early internet. Where DX read a list of things USA network said they couldn’t say on live television.
Sites should inform blocked, suspended, banned users, of exactly why they got punished. Specific reasons, not a generic line in policy.
The user then had fair warning. Break the local Twitter law again and they can do as they wish.
I’d even accept 1-strike bans if the user was given an actual reason why.
My opinion of Twitter went up, a tiny bit, when this story was published.
After ignoring grotesque comments from other world leaders and influencers for many many months, including calls to violence, they show here they’re willing to apply their rules to other heads of state.
Now if they’d start removing other people who clearly call for violent actions in violation of law…!
Re: Re: Re:5
There’s a bigger problem in trying to predefine everything: Every rule has a loophole, and every asshole looks for the loopholes. Ban the phrase “conversion ‘therapy’ ” from Twitter, for example, and assholes who support it will change what they call that torturous practice to avoid the radar. Ban the word “queer” because some people use it as a slur and those who identify as queer will end up caught in the crosshairs. Rules need to be able to predefine an outline of what speech is against the rules without being restricted to specific forms of speech. Times change, contexts change — and an inability to adapt means certain doom.
Remove “blocked” from that list and I’d generally agree. (Blocking is typically a user-side action; nobody owes anyone an explanation for why they decided to block someone, least of all the person who was blocked.)
They did — or did you miss the day when Twitter banned your Dear Leader?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
There’s a bit of a problem in not predefining things though
No. There’s no such problem. No one could possibly come up with a pre-defined list of possible infractions, because it’s all so context dependent and constantly changing.
Anyone who thinks you can pre-define the rules is an ignorant fool.
I suggest listening to the Radiolab episode that they did on content moderation that shows how every time you think you’ve predefined a rule, you come across an edge case. So you make a change to the rules. And another edge case pops up immediately. It’s pretty much all edge cases all the time.
Pre-defined rules are not possible.
Sites should inform blocked, suspended, banned users, of exactly why they got punished. Specific reasons, not a generic line in policy.
The reason sites don’t do this is because so many of the bad faith actors on the platform will then argue over how THEY don’t think they violated THAT specific rule. So, the only "benefit" of doing that is that you have to waste a shit ton of time dealing with bad faith actors.
Why would anyone want to do that?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Here’s an exchange from Wednesday:
‘Hey Lost, why did you move my thread to the sandbox?’
“You brought up politics “
‘Since when is that bad”
“You read the sticky right?!?”
‘No’
“You should”
‘Fuck you’
“Your place or mine?”
~thread locked
There are plenty of ways to deal with moderation not involving censorship.
I have the upmost respect for any company that stops short of deletion. I have a vile contempt for any company that deletes.
I’ve pointed out alternatives to censorship many many times. There are ways to not promote things you don’t like short of censoring it outright.
When you opt to censor you’re a rude to be flushed from public existence.
The only thing I delete is obvious fraud. And even there I tend to simply remove the html code from the link so everyone can make fun of them.
Re: Re: Re:7
And what if someone doesn’t want to host the speech at all — should they be forced to host it so someone like you doesn’t call them a “censor” and subject them to harassment and humiliation? Your only solution to moderating speech someone doesn’t want to host is, in effect, “keep hosting the speech”. Doesn’t matter if it’s sandboxed. Doesn’t matter if it’s covered in a content warning. The speech is still there, and under your belief system vis-á-vis censorship, anyone who deletes that speech because they don’t want it associated with them or their property/service — even though the same speech could be reposted literally anywhere else! — is a filthy fucking censor.
(I kinda get what you’re trying to say here, but next time, hit the Preview button before you post and make sure you’re actually saying something coherent instead of letting your autocorrect do all your talking for you.)
No one is entitled to a spot on Twitter. Someone having their speech deleted from Twitter has not been censored — or flushed from public existence. That someone can take the same speech that got deleted and repost it anywhere else on the Internet. That they may not get the same audience for their speech that they might have had on Twitter is irrelevant because nobody — not a single goddamned person who has lived, who is living, and who will ever live — is entitled to an audience of any size.
Twitter is not a public fora. Twitter is not the be-all, end-all of public Internet speech and communications. Were Twitter to be shut down today, people could still communicate over the Internet and find ways to publish their speech.
Before you go making a statement about Twitter “censoring” people out of “public existence”, ask yourself this: How can I be censored/outside of public existence by virtue of not having a Twitter account, yet still tear down your inanity directly to your face for potentially all the world to read on this open-to-the-public website?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“ anyone who deletes that speech because they don’t want it associated with them or their property/service — even though the same speech could be reposted literally anywhere else! — is a filthy fucking censor.”
Good: you finally get it!
Ding ding,
Have a cookie etc.
I can recognise one’s right without agreeing with how they execute that right.
Re: Re: Re:9
I’m not fucking agreeing with you on the point, you ignorant dipshit.
My point is that even though someone isn’t being censored when their speech is moderated off a service that doesn’t want to host it, you still think they are — and the acts that belief can justify are fucking atrocious, because it means you can justify the forced hosting of speech and the compelled association of services with speech such as racial slurs and anti-gay propaganda. Your belief of “moderation is censorship” could justify actions that would silence marginalized voices and leave space only for those willing and able to wade through the muck and mire of services bogged down in bigotry, spam, porn, and trolling.
I’m not agreeing with your belief — I’m openly shitting on it. That’s because your belief deserves nothing but mockery and scorn and derision. So don’t you ever dare to defame me by implying that I agree with you on that point. If I agree with you on anything, I’ll explicitly fucking say so.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“ I’m not fucking agreeing with you…”
Hence my cookie comment.
But that’s the first time you made public an understanding of what I said.
“ fucking atrocious, because it means you can justify the forced hosting of speech”
Maybe you can. I can’t. I can’t justify violating property rights, not even for speech.
“… of “moderation is censorship” …”
If your form of moderation is deletion, you’ve censored.
“… could justify…”
Could, maybe. The majority of people calling for forced hosting right now are people that could easily be swayed by acknowledging the private property issue. I will always opt for the least aggressive method of administrative moderation.
Re: Re: Re:11
Your belief could. Someone who believes moderation is censorship, no matter how they feel about PrOpErTy RiGhTs, could justify actions such as forcing services to host speech because they also believe censorship is evil and should be prevented at all costs. The belief justifies the act; that you’re unwilling to act on the belief doesn’t make that belief any less horrible.
So whose rights are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of preventing censorship?
I told you I was going to do this:
Having your speech deleted from one place out of a hundred, a thousand, even a million places overall isn’t censorship. Being denied the right to speak on property you don’t own isn’t censorship. Someone refusing to be the audience for your speech isn’t censorship. Nobody has a right to an audience or a platform at the expense of others — and being denied the privilege of an audience or a platform at the expense of others is not the same thing as being denied the right to speak at all.
And how do you know that with the certainty of God Herself? How do you know for an absolutely unassailable fact that people who believe both “censorship is evil” and “moderation is censorship” can be convinced to give up even one of those beliefs by talking about PrOpErTy RiGhTs?
I will opt for forms of moderation that actually punish people for breaking the rules. That includes bans and deletion of posts. Neither of those are censorship because on a service I own and operate, nobody else has an absolute right to use that service as their soapbox. Losing a privilege isn’t censorship; being denied the right to speak is. To that end, I want you to tell me something, Lodos: When Twitter banned Old 45, did that stop Donald Trump — then the sitting President of the United States — from speaking his mind anywhere else in both cyber- and meatspace? If the answer is “no”, he wasn’t censored by Twitter, no matter how much you cling to your practically religious belief that moderation is censorship.
And if the answer is “yes”, don’t even bother replying. I don’t need another fucking migraine.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
“ I told you I was going to do this:”
Fine:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.
“ And how do you know that with the certainty of God Herself?”
With certainty, now. With educated reason, yes.
Because most of the conservatives calling for it have libertarian property leanings in voting history.
“moderation is censorship“
I’m not the one who’s threw deletionism into the moderation class.
Deletion is censorship.
Acceptance that something is legal doesn’t translate to agreement. You have the right to run around your house naked and covered in honey. Doesn’t mean I agree with it.
You have the right to sleep with a running chain saw. I think your fairly lacking mentally if you do.
You have the right to censor on private services you control. I think your a self/righteous pig if you do.
I don’t agree with interstate speed limits but I abide by them.
“ If the answer is “no”, he wasn’t censored by Twitter…”
No, he was censored ON Twitter.
“ I don’t need another fucking migraine.”
You should talk to your doctor about Triptans, as long as you have a healthy heart. They work for most people with migraines.
Re: Re: Re:13
fuck this I don’t need a fatal migraine
done with you and your bullshit
Re:
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
Maybe African nations are far more familiar with white people’s ‘but muh private platform’ argument. They got more than enough of it during colonialism from the Royal African Company.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Follow the rules of the country your in. Twitter has no right to access people in any country.
Re:
Follow the rules of the service you’re on. Nobody has a right to post on any service they don’t own.
Re: Re: Re:
Correct
Re: Re:
The internet is not a country.