Plan B Forum

It’s PERMANENT!!

Hallelujah!!!!!!!!

I don't do Twitter so I'm not sure exactly how it works, but what's to stop him from creating a second account under some other name?

-"BB"-

It's not as if he can go incognito. As soon as it's recognized as him, it will be terminated.

He’s already tried posting on his POTUS account and campaign account and they’ve been removed. He’s banned in totality as a user of the platform, no matter whose account.

Why didn’t you do it 4.5 years ago, Mr. Dorsey?

These tech barons will have blood on their hands if a revolution takes place. I already hold them in part accountable for the virulence of anti masking and virus denial as they let that stuff explode for months before finally installing filters to tag all the science denying posts.

Shall we start burning books next?

How does Twitter, or anyone else, choosing not to give him a platform anymore come even remotely close to burning books?

It's preventing his ability to put out a message on social media, a way of suppressing speech on one of the most common forms of self expression.

Book burning is the deliberate destruction by fire of books or other written materials, usually carried out in a public context. The burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning

Again, more of the Mickey the Dunce routine that I don't have the slightest inclination to entertain, so you can continue jerking yourself off in this manner if you wish.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:35 pm

Again, more of the Mickey the Dunce routine that I don't have the slightest inclination to entertain, so you can continue jerking yourself off in this manner if you wish.

AKA: "You're right, and I have no answer to that" (in the polite world.)

He also has an entire communications department and staff at his disposal. He has a voice, he is just too much of a coward to use it.

He doesn’t need social media, he just hides behind it.

Yep, but it's about censorship, not his ability to get his word out. A new moral philosophy, does social media have the right to ban people, or has its importance become bigger than the rights of its ownership?

I'm on a three day ban from Facebook, as I wished covid-19 on a group of fox hunters who were breaking UK covid guidelines.

So I own a megaphone, that I have been allowing you to use in the town square. For whatever reason, I don't like what you have been saying while using it, so I take it back. In your eyes, that makes me one step removed from a book burner.

Interesting analogy, but we are talking about a major political figure, (love him or loathe him, (guess,)) and the decision to prevent him using a service, one which he has communicated to millions with.

It also brings up the interesting new dilemma of handing moral control over international communication to an unelected, wealthy, and uncontrolled, elite. At present the seem to be complying with the needs of the majority, but what if that wee to change? What if Facebook banded all anti-hunt protest groups? Or twitter decided that the word "fuck" was forbidden on their service?

Twitter and Facebook are private forums. If you want to play in their house, you have to follow their rules. Period. We have covered this before, but the First Amendment applies only to state action. It is designed to prevent the government from squelching speech based on the content of that speech. Private entities can squelch whatever they like. The rules on private fora should apply equally to you and to the President. Now they do.

It is *not* standing on the street corner with a megaphone, because that is a public forum.

Also, incitement of violence isn’t protected speech anyway.

Gob wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:09 pm

Interesting analogy, but we are talking about a major political figure, (love him or loathe him, (guess,)) and the decision to prevent him using a service, one which he has communicated to millions with.

Still trying to figure out the logical progression from there to book burning. Care to connect the dots for us, step by step?

It also brings up the interesting new dilemma of handing moral control over international communication to an unelected, wealthy, and uncontrolled, elite. At present the seem to be complying with the needs of the majority, but what if that wee to change? What if Facebook banded all anti-hunt protest groups? Or twitter decided that the word "fuck" was forbidden on their service?

I would guess, similarly to what is happening with Parler, 8chan, QAnon, etc., that those who couldn't live without using the word "fuck", or whatever, would see a new platform emerge on which they could use it with impunity.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Still trying to figure out the logical progression from there to book burning. Care to connect the dots for us, step by step?

In the days when book burning was all the rage, they didn't have the internet, nor TV even, book burning was a major way of censoring, and preventing access to information and thought. Banning communication by electronic/digital/social media, is the modern equivalent.

"On May 10, 1933, university students burn upwards of 25,000 “un-German” books in Berlin’s Opera Square. Some 40,000 people gather to hear Joseph Goebbels deliver a fiery address: “No to decadence and moral corruption!” As part of an effort to align German arts and culture with Nazi ideas (Gleichschaltung), university students in college towns across Germany burned thousands of books they considered to be “un-German,” heralding an era of state censorship and cultural control. Students threw books pillaged mostly from public and university libraries onto bonfires with great ceremony, band-playing, and so-called “fire oaths.” The students sought to purify German literature of “foreign,” especially Jewish, and other immoral influences."
(But I suspect you knew all this.)

]I would guess, similarly to what is happening with Parler, 8chan, QAnon, etc., that those who couldn't live without using the word "fuck", or whatever, would see a new platform emerge on which they could use it with impunity.

Digital segregation? Isn't that more dangerous than allowing the free flow of thought and information on the major platforms?

Gob wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:40 pm

Scooter wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:35 pm

Again, more of the Mickey the Dunce routine that I don't have the slightest inclination to entertain, so you can continue jerking yourself off in this manner if you wish.

AKA: "You're right, and I have no answer to that" (in the polite world.)