twitter cancels the nigerian president.
then nigeria cancels twitter.
and suddenly, the bullying bluebird thinks access to the the open internet is an essential human right?
hello, pot? kettle on line 2. wants to discuss coloration.
twitter is a private company and i have and do support their right to do as they like with their site and content. (and after the great de-catforming of 2021 with no appeals or even explanation, i feel like i have as good a right as any to opine here)
but you don’t get to whine about “essential human rights” and morally grandstand about “getting canceled” when cancelling others is such a big part of your business model and political philosophy.
you sound like mao whining about how it’s no fair to drag HIM into a struggle session.
jack has zero moral high ground here. it’s just tactical hypocrisy and the classic crybully move.
“when we do it, it’s justice. when they do it, it’s oppression.”
if this is an essential human right, then how do you justify banning so much speech and so many people from your platform?
if this is a moral issue, then the fact that it’s legal for twitter to censor is irrelevant. slavery was once legal too. did that make it ethical or just?
so pick a side of the street and live on it, jackie boy. this phony moralistic outrage is not a good look.
i’d ask naomi what she thinks about this, but, well…
As long as social media benefit from Sec. 230 protection, they _don't_ have the right to "do whatever they want."
If you’re granted special legal immunities/favors, those should come with special obligations, as well. No more having their cake and eating it, too.
Accepting _special favors_ from the government ALWAYS comes with restrictions. Social media want special exemptions? Then they accept government restrictions, i.e., act as common carriers a la phone companies that don't monitor and censor what users do. They just provide a service.
They want to act as publishers with the full right to edit any and all content as they see fit? Fine. Then they should be treated _as any other publisher_ and NOT be exempt from liability. I've zero legal problem with them censoring their sites to their hearts' content in that situation.
But there is NO violation of their First Amendment rights in demanding they be content-neutral if they want special legal favors.
Congress needs to repeal Section 230c2A, a proviso that is nothing more than a gutting of the intent of the CDA, a weasel-worded betrayal that gives a wink-and-a-nod to social media companies to do whatever the hell THEY want—without penalty or restriction—in regard to the user generated content that makes the very existence of those companies possible IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Nigeria: “OMG OMG Whatever will become of us now that our action have been condemned by Jack? We’re doomed! Doomed! Oh, right. Who cares? Never mind.”
How did they go from this:
“Twitter is the free speech wing of the free speech party”
‘Twitter readily censors anyone whom government and public health officials disapprove of’
I'm off Twitter. I am surprised how much I miss it. But, I do not want to be a "member" of an organization that systematically censors free speech and opposing political viewpoints. If enough people say "enough," our Twitter overlords will get the point.
Why do I feel like I am living in a real life version of revenge of the nerds? Just one man’s opinion but it strikes me as a tad bit ironic that everyone of these social justice warriors and self proclaimed smartest people in the room are pushing for a one party society that promotes equal outcomes as well as Marxist dogma such as CRT while cancelling anyone who disagrees with them. I wonder how successful they would have been starting their companies outside the United States. Of course when we achieve their “Great Reset”, nothing will change for them. Remember all their wealth resides in their foundations. Keep in mind these are the same posers who fly to Davos in their private jets while they lecture us poor plebes about climate change.
Dorsey is Goebbels, only Goebbels was more transparent.
Hypocrisy among this set is a feature, not a bug.
These instances of “Do as I say, not as I do” seem to be more frequent.
internet that is only congenial to jack dorsey is a crime..... twitter is cover for tyrants
So that's why Nigeria and why Naomi Wolf. I don't quite agree with you about Twitter being able to do whatever they want. Regulation of businesses is a well established practice in America for the good of the public. (Yes, I understand the downside of that, but sometimes e accept the downside when the abuse is great enough). As Twitter (along with Facebook, Google, and Amazon) is so big, it could be considered something of utility. So either regulation or breaking them up. However, until that happens, I'll just have to enjoy this little bit of irony.
Twitter was so much fun when it started…. #TCOT and #FF
Brilliant post thanks
so outrageous and disgusting, these hypocritical evil liberals... they are evil, stupid and destructive