He is going to Alamo, TX, not to the Alamo in San Antonio, TX.
Donald is going to visit the Alamo.
Which is the only appropriate action he's ever taken as president.
Good. Now hit him where it hurts; I'm looking at you, McDonald's and KFC!
It's good that we have the private sector stepping in bring some Justice to Trump, because corrupt Republican politicians will shield him to the end.
Is there any way he could be banned from drinking Cola? Or would that constitute 'cruel and unusual'?
How does he make$from Twitter?Man he's losing his income streams FAST. How much was his Twitter valued at? Like $100M or something ridiculous?
Taking away the last strands he had to generate cash flow. I like it.
How does he make$from Twitter?
He is going to Alamo, TX, not to the Alamo in San Antonio, TX.
Donald is going to visit the Alamo.
Which is the only appropriate action he's ever taken as president.
Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?
There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
It's called social platforms run by private corporations, not your local news media channel. It's a free market, right? What happened to all the conservatives espousing the freedom of the free market?Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?
There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
There’s nothing to stop Twitter from banning those I love tomorrow, but I struggle to see why that matters.Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?
Sadly I don’t think there was ever a time when Americans actually understood what freedom of speech means.There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
My favorite part is that in the name of freedom of speech they want the government to force people to speak against their will.It's called social platforms run by private corporations, not your local news media channel. It's a free market, right? What happened to all the conservatives espousing the freedom of the free market?
There is a problem with banning people. But as long as you have free and functional press, then I don't think it is a problem. Democracy worked fine before social media, some would even argue it worked better, and Trump still has the right to freedom of speech. Before social media, the press worked as gatekeepers, deciding what to put in the newspaper, radio or TV,and most did not allow people who wanted to turn over democracy access to their media, now the Some platforms are doing the same.Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?
There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
That's a very slippery slope you are on there - plenty of futuristic games and films where corporate power manage to take over for you to reflect on.There’s nothing to stop Twitter from banning those I love tomorrow, but I struggle to see why that matters.
Trump is the president of the United States. He literally has an entire press office filled with staff whose sole purpose is to give him a larger voice. What, did Twitter assassinate them all or something?
Sadly I don’t think there was ever a time when Americans actually understood what freedom of speech means.
Freedom of speech means the government can’t censor your speech. It does not mean that a private company must carry and amplify your speech at its own expense. That’s not freedom, that’s entitlement.
Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?
There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
That's a very slippery slope you are on there - plenty of futuristic games and films where corporate power manage to basically take over.
Newspapers are also private companies, yet facebook/google/twitter are now a bigger source of news then most of them - twitter in particular was a way for the president to tell the world directly what he thought without any re-wording or editorial direction put around it. It is very good that the president has a way of doing this, and I would argue letting him do it probably cost him the election because people got to hear exactly what he thought. That is the advantage of free speech, it lets people decide for themselves.
What do you think people will do if they can't get their voice heard? Imagine Zuckerberg was Trump lover and banned anyone opposed too him? Do you perhaps think that might force people to use more violent and extreme methods of making themselves heard? Perhaps they will manage to setup their own platforms that only they are allowed on and they can ban anyone who doesn't agree with them? Is that really a good thing?
Allowing both sides an opportunity to speak and then having reasoned debate is the best way to work - everyone used to understand that. Trying to silence what you don't agree with in the end will make things worse as you force people further apart further into echo chamber silo's and building bigger walls stopping any type of reasoned solution. How can a country run well when both halves of it are getting more and more opposed and instead of building consensus it's all about building division.
Except that people like Trump are not trying to have a reasonable debate - they are spewing hatred and nonsense, and encouraging violence. This violates the platforms' terms of service, which these people agreed to when signing up, so the platform is well within its rights to ban them. Just like if you were debating somebody on TV and all of a sudden you started threatening violence against them, you would be immediately taken out of the debate.
This goes beyond punishing people you disagree with... the platforms are punishing people who are trying to get other people hurt.
Well that’s an antitrust issue, not a free speech one.That's a very slippery slope you are on there - plenty of futuristic games and films where corporate power manage to take over for you to reflect on.
Newspapers are also private companies, yet facebook/google/twitter are now a bigger source of news then most of them - twitter in particular was a way for the president to tell the world directly what he thought without any re-wording or editorial direction put around it. It is very good that the president has a way of doing this, and I would argue letting him do it probably cost him the election because people got to hear exactly what he thought. That is the advantage of free speech, it lets people decide for themselves.
The idea that the literal president of the United States, armed with a large shop filled with people whose sole purpose is to amplify his voice, is somehow unable to make himself heard is facially ridiculous.What do you think people will do if they can't get their voice heard? Imagine Zuckerberg was Trump lover and banned anyone opposed too him? Do you perhaps think that might force people to use more violent and extreme methods of making themselves heard? Perhaps they will manage to setup their own platforms that only they are allowed on and they can ban anyone who doesn't agree with them? Is that really a good thing?
Both sides have tons of opportunities to speak and can use them to their heart’s content. What they don’t have is the ability to use the government to force other people to publish their speech because THAT is a violation of free speech, not the other way around.Allowing both sides an opportunity to speak and then having reasoned debate is the best way to work - everyone used to understand that. Trying to silence what you don't agree with in the end will make things worse as you force people further apart, further into echo chambers and building bigger walls stopping any type of reasoned solution. How can a country run well when both halves of it are getting more and more opposed and instead of building consensus it's all about building division.
Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?
There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
Dribble indeed. Trump has no right to force any private entity to give him a platform. Nazis have no right to force any private entity to give them a platform. I have no right to force any private entity to give me a platform. We all have the right to say what we want on our own without interference from the government.Everyone here is celebrating the ability of corporate power to ban the president of the united states from having a voice or raising money. Even if you hate Trump surely this must give you a little pause for thought? I mean what's to stop them banning people you love tomorrow, what's to stop them dictating what we get to hear about?
There was a time when the liberals actually fought for Nazi's right to protest because they believed freedom of speech was that important. What happened?
Dribble indeed. Trump has no right to force any private entity to give him a platform. Nazis have no right to force any private entity to give them a platform. I have no right to force any private entity to give me a platform. We all have the right to say what we want on our own without interference from the government.
Also this is no different than how newspapers and tv stations work.