That diatribe at the end shows where your mind has been this whole time.
Just going to point out that Kathy Griffin was suspended on Twitter and lost her job.
I guess that part didn't fit your narrative...
Just going to point out that Kathy Griffin was suspended on Twitter and lost her job.
I guess that part didn't fit your narrative...
I can't find Steve Bannon's Twitter account anywhere. Now why is that so? Can you find it for me?
Unless you are talking about a different Kathy Griffin she hasn't been suspended.
As far as losing her job is concerned that is not something I was even bothered about. Since when did discussion on Big Tech censorship turn into resultant unemployment because of stupidity?
I don't mind those terrorists who invaded the Capitol be tried and thrown behind bars let alone be put in no fly lists or be removed from their jobs. Insurrection has to have consequences. I just don't want Big Tech's ideological censorship. Because this emboldens Big Tech to do more ideological censorship not less. Let the law take its course. Let the insurrectionists face real life consequences for their treason including but not limited to loss of job, putting on no fly lists and even prison time. It doesn't require Big Tech censorship to achieve those consequences. Or apply the rules to everyone in the same way. If you are going to ban Steve Bannon for beheading statements then ban Kathy Griffin for holding a decapitated head of the President. As simple as that.
If the Big Tech companies can't do it then I'll call them hypocrites. Then they have no moral standing when it comes to Parler. What is the difference between Parler and them? Nothing at all.
Notice how you completely skipped the part where I mentioned how Twitter enabled ISIS to operate with impunity for 2 years and only focused on my last paragraph? Yeah that shows where your mind is.
It's almost like you didn't realize suspensions default to being temporary... it's newsworthy to be permanently suspended, and it only happens with a heavy pattern of rule breaking, once or twice didn't do it...
You don't even know what a Twitter suspension is and yet you're going after this.
-
Also I skipped the part about Isis because:
a) Twitter literally spent years fighting Daesh on their platform and you're cluelessly trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
b) If I had followed every lazy diversion you dropped in that diatribe I'd need to start billing you here.
Nope. I never heard of Bannon's Twitter account being temporarily suspended in the past. Can't find any source for it. It can't be possible because this account was created post-pandemic (aka 2020). If you can point me to any source which confirms what you say I'll be willing to change my stance that Twitter did give him a "chance" first. If you are talking about Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos account being banned then that is not the same as Bannon's account (called War Room: Pandemic - Suspended account here: http://twitter.com/WarRoomPandemic).
The best part is that Bannon did not even put the video on Twitter but instead put it on Facebook. But still got suspended by Twitter. Whereas Kathy Griffin posted the photo and video of the photoshoot on Twitter and got a rap on her knuckles.
a) Twitter literally spent years fighting Daesh on their platform and you're cluelessly trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
Yeah that is why they were sued for it right? Maybe you can tell the widow of the man who died because of an ISIS attack this logical reasoning. Let us see if she will be convinced with your reasoning.
That lawsuit was thrown out. You know why? Because of Section 230. Which surprisingly only applies to Big Tech. Not to small tech like Parler.
trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
Isn't that what was done to Parler? Using the users posts to ban Parler from all platforms. By trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something. Section 230 was turned into a joke when it came to Parler. What is the use of Section 230 if a platform can be censored and banned nevertheless?
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-judg...
"A US judge...tossed out a lawsuit accusing Twitter of abetting terrorism by allowing Islamic State propaganda to be broadcast using the messaging platform. District Court Judge William Orrick granted a motion by Twitter to dismiss the case, reasoning that providing a platform for speech is within the law and that the company did not create the content. The Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being held responsible for what users post."
Be better.