Angela Merkel attacks Twitter over Trump ban

[Kushinator]

How do you know they're following the laws?

I have faith in our systems ability to identify illegal activity and properly deal with it. If you have evidence of illegal activity by social media, you could have posted it in the statement i've quoted.

But you didn't... because you don't.

The best you have to offer is a weak conjecture.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

They do not use nazi flags though, so they are forced to mask their true beliefs about Hilter and Nazis.
and there was an attempt (by the German government) to outlaw the party
and the German court's rationale for rejecting it was that the party was too small to impose any threat.
The constitutional court in Karlsruhe ruled that the NPD was hostile to German democracy but the party "lacks sufficient weight to enable its actions to lead to success".

In other words, according to the German courts, the freedom of speech for a bigger party with the exact same ideology can be restricted.

The Germans courts are showing the same wisdom once available in US courts and the public. But now the rioters and the media have shut down opinions unacceptable to the MSM and Big Tech in the US. Such irony would once never had been thought possible.

 

[prometeus]

Obviously not, since Uber was incapable to meet the standards here.

No, they just did not want to. They could have, but chose not to. Their loss, screw them.

Nothing is deadlier than trying to open a business in a foreign nation and think you can break the law.

Got what they deserved.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

I have faith in our systems ability to identify illegal activity and properly deal with it. If you have evidence of illegal activity by social media, you could have posted it in the statement i've quoted.

But you didn't... because you don't.

The best you have to offer is a weak conjecture.

It's going before the courts so we don't yet know if they are following the law or not. We should be hoping that their attempt at a complete monopoly fails.

 

[Slavister]

If private companies are abusing the special privileges afforded to them, then they lose their special privileges. Time to rethink Section 230.

How do you keep me out if a private company has no right to decide what I can or cannot say?

But its not the law here, and for good reason. People should not be required to host or post things they do not approve on their site. Twitter and Facebook are owned by those private companies. They are not owned by those people being given permission to post comments there.

A private company has every right ...

Trump even has his supporters complaining about free association with private companies.

It's a private company with a specific set of rules for users banning a user for one of myriad rule violations.

She would never "allow?" In Germany, the government can dictate what private entities can and cannot say?

If people decide to go to a mall to protest in one of the mall's open areas, should that private company be allowed to kick the protesters out?

Unless the US gets rid of the First Amendment, we have to rely on private companies. That's a much bigger issue than Twitter banning Trump.

... a law that lets the government dictate what private companies can and can’t do with their property.

Twitter is a private company and can restrict speech to any level they want.

... twitter is a private corporation who have zero obligation to ...

The problem is the law only protects the government from not allowing you to speak freely; it does not prevent private businesses from doing so.

I do not believe I did. I merely and directly responded to a post.

And in many different way all private companies are.

... Twitter is a private company regardless of giving people the ability to join it for free.

People are unaware that the constitution which restricts the government from taking away certain proteced rights can also sometimes apply to private people and private companies.

... And yes consequences from a private company that ...

The strained rhetoric of liberal schizophrenics about the right of private American companies ...

... We allow private companies ...

The US has spent so much time defining what constitutes news outlets and politicians have advocated leaving private businesses alone to create their own policies and effectively police themselves ...

... Twitter is a private company, hence ...

I mean in that callout Merkel wanted the US to enact laws so that it was the government making the determination of what’s allowed online instead of private companies.

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

 

[prometeus]

And Leftists have been destroying small business

The Kochs are now leftists. How about Adelson?

 

[prometeus]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

You need to learn the meaning of a private company and why a publicly traded company is still a private company.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Trump Protected Twitter, facebook, Google etc from European countries threatened to hit them with a digital tax .... those companies among others went crying to Trump to protect them from EU taxes .... and that's how they treated him .... i don't like the man but it just shows how treacherous these companies are .... it's a certainty that the EU and other non EU nations including London will hit them with a digital tax

And they lied in front of the legislature also. They know where the realm power lies and they'll be choosing who gets elected and who doesn't.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

The Kochs are now leftists. How about Adelson?

Were they rioting in the streets? Is there someone nearby who can explain the post to you?

 

[Kushinator]

It's going before the courts so we don't yet know if they are following the law or not. We should be hoping that their attempt at a complete monopoly fails.

Twitter isn't going before the courts for anti-trust. What is it about Trumpism that compels people to make declaratory statements without investing the necessary time learning about the subject?

 

[SMTA]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

Makes no difference.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Twitter isn't going before the courts for anti-trust. What is it about Trumpism that compels people to make declaratory statements without investing the necessary time learning about the subject?

Are you going to get smart ass with me? If that's the case we'll start. Otherwise try to focus on the topic.

 

[Deuce]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

This semantic whining does not, in fact, alter the arguments in any way.

 

[Perotista]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

I used private as in meaning not government owned, but owned by the private or you can say, civilian sector. Twitter must follow U.S. Law, not that of Germany. Even being public owned, it has the right to set up and enforce their own rules as it applies to them as far as they're not breaking any U.S. existing laws.

 

[ElChupacabra]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

Yep, duly noted. @Perotista clarified the meaning as I intended to use, but you are correct.

 

[Kushinator]

Are you going to get smart ass with me? If that's the case we'll start. Otherwise try to focus on the topic.

You're clearly confused. Why am i the one who needs to focus on the topic when you're confusing what companies are facing anti-trust allegations, and using that as a means of supporting your position. Instead of worrying about what i'm saying, spend that time trying to respond with something of substance.

 

[C MAN]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

All said Twitter is a free enterprise. But so was US STEEL, A&TnT, and Uber. US companies have the same rights as individuals and when they fail to act consciencesly we have the rule of law to see that they do.

 

[roguenuke]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

In this obvious context, the definition of a "private company" is simply one that is not owned by the government. The government cannot impose laws on publicly traded companies regarding who they are allowed to do business with or not based on whether they are publicly trading stocks or privately owned, not in regards to business practices. Reporting differently on finances is not at all related to what they can or cannot do within their business practices.

 

[ElChupacabra]

All said Twitter is a free enterprise. But so was US STEEL, A&TnT, and Uber. US companies have the same rights as individuals and when they fail to act consciencesly we have the rule of law to see that they do.

This is a subject where the rubber meets the road in terms of free market ideology and the need to regulate industry.

 

[Objective Voice]

So... this probably won't affect any of your arguments but just to clarify ... Twitter is NOT a private company ... It's a public company with publicly traded stock and corresponding additional requirements imposed by the government (most of which are related to publishing finances).

By that logic no publicly traded company is a privately owned business. They all may as well join the Communist Block.

 

[Bonnot]

A lawyer on this

https://youtube.com/shorts/Yp6pQQMNeMs

 

[Rostocker]

No, they just did not want to. They could have, but chose not to. Their loss, screw them.

Got what they deserved.

Actually not, Uber since years tries to get into the market here, constantly changing business models to meet the the criteria but still make a profit but gets constantly banned by courts.

 

[pamak]

You seem to be missing the point while using labels.

It does not matter whether Murdoch is liberal or conservative. He's be whatever the times call for in order to become richer and more powerful -and all these multi billionaires are the same. The labels we throw around on the lower levels, making it easier to think, are never used up there and it is foolish and naïve to think they do.

And how long do you think Sinclair, or any 'conservative' media will stay in business if Google, Amazon and the boys target them"?

You cannot become richer by just having channels that shift from right to left and the opposite. You need to have an audience that trusts you

 

[prometeus]

Were they rioting in the streets?

What the **** are you babbling about? You made a moronic remark, as usual, about the leftists destroying small business, not about riots.

 

[Kushinator]

Actually not, Uber since years tries to get into the market here, constantly changing business models to meet the the criteria but still make a profit but gets constantly banned by courts.

Uber doesn't make a profit, which is one of the reasons it's being prohibited from various countries and municipalities. They are necessarily losing money in order to gain market share. Some view this as anti-competitive and ban them in order to protect their local high-cost cab/limo services.