Getting kicked off a privately owned platform, based in a country with pretty clear laws, is not 'removing someone's free speech'.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Getting kicked off a privately owned platform, based in a country with pretty clear laws, is not 'removing someone's free speech'.
It is when the gov uses their ties to ban him from every single platform available and threaten the ones that don't do it.
Then you probably don't have any issues with that same privately owned platform allowing him back, right?
Why would I have an issue either way?
It's Twitter (and the other platforms you say that the US government threatens?) that has to cop the legal blowback from that loonie bin.
Twitter is the only one that we are sure off, but Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Youtube, and others all get threatened and do whatever the powers that be tell them too.
I agree that he is nuts, but hopefully he learned there are lines.
privately owned? when they were just an arm of the government? censoring communication?
Not sure I agree.
I just don't get why we think Twitter has any sort of mandate to allow people to promote hate speech that will attract the attention of the government where they're based (your US of A).
They don't.
They are there to make money and not get anyone working at the company arrested.
Of course they will continue to ban loonie bins like that guy.
His Sandy Hook shit has just blown over, but there will be many more like him booted in the future.