Trump asks U.S. judge to force Twitter to restart his account

[reflechissez]

Of course there are but to state the last tweet is part of a context of inciting violence when it doesn't do so demonstrates the false face of what was done.

Twitter disagrees with your opinion.

 

[Lursa]

LOL this is pathetic, how much lazier can you get, you have the transcript, you can look up the tweets in question, you just keep asking questions. Im not doing homework for the intellectually lazy. Make a counterpoint and back it. I have already made my case multiple times and I am not going to restate it every 5 posts because you come in and cant be bothered to read the thread.

My counterpoint is that I wholly agree with the characterization that he was inciting insurrection (illegal/unconstitutional action if not violence) and that his posting in general supported that.

Why are you getting pissed off? Give me a post number with your counterpoint.

 

[reflechissez]

They stated commitment to free expression over and over in their process of account action but largely ignored it whenever they felt like it. Stating one thing, doing another, acting in bad faith while making commitments to fairness and freedom of speech.

Opinion

 

[OpportunityCost]

Sorry, I'm catching up and working my way thru the thread.

What do you want to know?

Nope. Not answering any more questions for you, make a stand on what you believe is going on. You aren't Socrates.

 

[Plasmaball]

They stated commitment to free expression over and over in their process of account action but largely ignored it whenever they felt like it. Stating one thing, doing another, acting in bad faith while making commitments to fairness and freedom of speech.

Cool...so you can't point to an actual law.
Plenty of conservatives of Facebook and Twitter.
That's for confirming you have nothing

 

[OpportunityCost]

Opinion

Nope, that was their ****ing testimony. You guys are an absolute joke, you are given the actual testimony where they state commitment to free expression and you state I am giving opinion.

Its a ****ing joke. All questions and stone walls, you really need to learn to think for yourself.

 

[Lursa]

Seriously. All this other highfalutin' noise is a distraction from that simple reality.

LOL I like that. Normally I'm thinking 'pretentious' from certain posters, but that's good.

Not aimed @OpportunityCost

 

[OpportunityCost]

Cool...so you can't point to an actual law.
Plenty of conservatives of Facebook and Twitter.
That's for confirming you have nothing

LOL so many people that just refuse to read any argument I have made. There is in fact no law at the heart of this issue. Its about them making commitments before congress to maintain the status quo on their legal market advantage or having input on changes while making no changes to their TOS and acting in bad faith after the hearings were over.

Note: I have made this clear to no less than 6 of you uninformed posters. Do just a little research ffs.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Nope, that was their ****ing testimony. You guys are an absolute joke, you are given the actual testimony where they state commitment to free expression and you state I am giving opinion.

Its a ****ing joke. All questions and stone walls, you really need to learn to think for yourself.

Who cares? Even if they had said what you seem to think - which I do not concede - so what?

 

[Lursa]

Nope. Not answering any more questions for you, make a stand on what you believe is going on. You aren't Socrates.

I think I have...

"My counterpoint is that I wholly agree with the characterization that he was inciting insurrection (illegal/unconstitutional action if not violence) and that his posting pattern in general since the election supported that."​

So I believe I understand Twitter's decision, feel it's responsible, and support it.

Do you have any responses or questions for me?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Twitter disagrees with your opinion.

Twitter is a dumpster fire of virtue signaling morons trying to prove which of them can kowtow the lowest.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Who cares? Even if they had said what you seem to think - which I do not concede - so what?

Since I answered that question and you specifically refuted it based on consideration and I replied to what the consideration was, I don't see why you are asking this question, unless you don't understand what is being said.

The so what is they lied before congress about their commitment to free speech to gain legal advantage and acted in bad faith while doing so. If you can't find the tort there, you aren't trying.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Oh no, it is the issue. Social media got before Congress and made promises not to do so. None of you, not one is even approaching this point, let alone refuting it.

Because that doesn't matter. Twitter banned Trump for violating their TOS. They never said or implied they would let violations of their TOS slide. You are conflating two separate issues and assuming they are one in the same.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Because that doesn't matter. Twitter banned Trump for violating their TOS. They never said or implied they would let violations of their TOS slide. You are conflating two separate issues and assuming they are one in the same.

Because the TOS violations are entirely subjective. So much derp, so very much.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Because the TOS violations are entirely subjective.

Since when?

 

[reflechissez]

Twitter is a dumpster fire of virtue signaling morons trying to prove which of them can kowtow the lowest.

ok

 

[OpportunityCost]

Since when?

I really think some of you don't know how to draw your own conclusions. Go read the tweets, bring them here and make an argument they are cut and dried. I have already produced things that backed my side of the argument its past time even one of you did the same.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Since I answered that question and you specifically refuted it based on consideration and I replied to what the consideration was, I don't see why you are asking this question, unless you don't understand what is being said.

The so what is they lied before congress about their commitment to free speech to gain legal advantage and acted in bad faith while doing so. If you can't find the tort there, you aren't trying.

It's possible that I missed a post of yours, but the last response from you I got was the utterly ridiculous claim that "all statements are legally binding if they're witnessed."

I don't remember seeing a post of yours where you mentioned what you see the consideration as. How about intent to contract?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Because the TOS violations are entirely subjective. So much derp, so very much.

Yes. The TOS itself makes that very clear.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I really think some of you don't know how to draw your own conclusions. Go read the tweets, bring them here and make an argument they are cut and dried. I have already produced things that backed my side of the argument its past time even one of you did the same.

No, that's also not the point.

TOS violations are not entirely subjective. Here on DebatePolitics we prohibit users from posting pornographic images, and if a user does that they are punished for it.

Twitter, as an independent private organization, is free to describe their TOS as they see fit. And when people violate their TOS, they are banned from using their service.

Trump, or anyone else for that matter, does not have a RIGHT to a twitter account and being able to post on twitter.

 

[Lursa]

With tremendous reservations and some trepidation I will support Trump’s next run, if it happens,

why would you state this so definitely, when you have no idea who he'll be running against, including the GOP to get the nom?

and a forming dissident structure that I believe must take form in the US. I hope it does develop.

With such reservations and trepidations? No one else will come along in the next couple of years more competent and committed?

The Donald is neither and did not prove himself such.

has developed that opposes Trump (verging into irrational, seemingly emotional territory).

Am still wondering why you'd commit to voting for him again....based on anything but the same. Explain?

 

[Amelia]

I really think some of you don't know how to draw your own conclusions. Go read the tweets, bring them here and make an argument they are cut and dried. I have already produced things that backed my side of the argument its past time even one of you did the same.

I doubt most think it was "cut and dried". I certainly won't try to argue that it was.

It was a judgment call based on the context of Trump's past words and actions and the way his words were being received by part of his base.

And it was Twitter's right to make that call.

 

[Lursa]

I really think some of you don't know how to draw your own conclusions. Go read the tweets, bring them here and make an argument they are cut and dried. I have already produced things that backed my side of the argument its past time even one of you did the same.

I think most/many have said it's subjective...but that there's a pattern, esp. since the election.

I didnt write 'cut and dried,' but maybe others have Look at it this way...Jan 6 happened and it didnt happen in a vacuum. The Donald created the Big Lie. It was fueled. From a variety of sources but IMO...and possibly Twitter's...from the keyboard and mouth of The Donald.

 

[Lursa]

Generally, especially on this forum, the same general pattern (or trope) of condemnation is used to label Trump. A master manipulator playing his ‘rubes’. It is really quite generic and largely canned.

Well...how else do you explain so many people buying into the Big Lie, for example?

 

[Lursa]

So how many times did they promise not to take action on political speech? Dorsey did as did Zuck.

Maybe they had no idea how bad it could get? IMO, it sure was hard to imagine or predict but that's just me.