Getting kicked out of walmart is because of property rights and laws about trespassing. Being censored for wrongthink has nothing to do with trespassing. False equivalence. Why can't you just admit that it's censorship and you just agree with it?
I was able to fix this article with a chrome extension called word replacer II.
Here's how it should read: https://i.imgur.com/huhQo2M.png
A cultistad hominem
fantastical statements about the Big Truth™strawman
So, can you give us examples of people and their partisan views that have been kicked off social media?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/
Please explain how Twitter — a privately owned service that does not operate as a public forum or government entity — can censor someone.By removing things people said from it. It's hilarious the mental gymnastics you go through to pretend this isn't censorship.
Again, literally no one is being kicked off social media for their partisan views,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
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!cen·sor (sĕn′sər)
n.
- A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
- An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
- One that condemns or censures.
- One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
- Psychology The component of the unconscious that is posited by psychoanalytic theory to be responsible for preventing certain thoughts or feelings from reaching the conscious mind.
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.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.
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.Yes, one is partisan censorship, and the other is justice for being a partisan censor.
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.
Yes or no: Does the removal of speech from Twitter prevent that exact same speech from being posted elsewhere?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.cen·sor (sĕn′sər)
n.
- A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
- An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
- One that condemns or censures.
- One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
- Psychology The component of the unconscious that is posited by psychoanalytic theory to be responsible for preventing certain thoughts or feelings from reaching the conscious mind.
Yes or no, Koby, and I really want you to fucking answer this one: Does a platform choosing to censor speech justify the censorship of that entire platform by a government body?FTFY
That you seem to care less about that than you do about taunting Twitter about it is…telling.
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.
Nigeria is a private company.
If twitter doesn't like this, they are free to create their own Nigeria.
forced to leave updat mental gymnastics. "forced to <do nothing>" lol You're a joke.
...says the troll who's consistently been carrying water for the alt-right's desperate attempt to make the online equivalent of bars cease throwing them out for being unpleasant assholes.Says the troll who makes strawman fallacies, ad hominems and thinks they're gotchas.
Doing nothing: Allowing speech on a platform built to allow posts Voluntary action: censorship by removing posts to a platform built to allow posts Compelled action: Being forced to print a letter You're trying to pretend the first is the third and nobody is falling for that strawman. That's the core of it. Censorship is a voluntary action, and anti-free speech advocates are pretending doing nothing (leaving posts alone) is something onerous and horrible, and compulsory. It's dishonest in the extreme.
The government is long past needing raided: https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem The election integrity protestors had the right location, just not the best reason.
Re: