Keri Hilson getting killed for Trump tweet: Is she right though ???

[gene cisco]

No...we just understand that if you violate their terms of service, they have the right to ban you. Nothing emotional about that.

If nambla was on Twitter organizing tours of preschools for it's members and posting pics of the toddlers they wanted to groom....and then twitter bans them, would it be emotional and stupid to agree with the ban? Would anybody have a point if they said but...but...but...they could do the same thing to black causes?

So we jump to pedos from this shit? Everyone who is objective about this knows rules are being selectively applied. Which is cool to some, until they do it to you. "B-b-b-b-ut that's different. We have a reason to do what we do or say what we say." Yeah right, until some cac hippies say you don't.

This ain't about the fucking rules. This about who does it. Wish people would cut the fucking 'it's the rules' shit. Just be open and admit you are for selective enforcement of the TOS. Nothing wrong with that. That's how you feel. But don't hide behind 'it's the rules'. And don't complain when these folks turn on us. Could be next year. Could be 5 years from now. But it will happen.

This is how all power grabs work man. They pick a target folks don't like and do shit to them. The humanoids clap like seals. Those in control then slowly expand power. They get to tell us what we can and cannot say. They get to tell us what to be upset about. They get to tell us what to talk about. They get to say when and where they apply THEIR rules.

You cool with that shit? Posting from a site that basically would be classified as hate by the same fucking people? Swear this shit would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. So yeah, people in their emotions if they can't see posting these opinions from BGOL is fucking crazy.

 

[guyver]

That's irony of it. Social media is not a movie theater. It's more like yell Bomb or Fire in an open desert. You don't like it you don't have to follow that person, at least that's the concept. Shit, I'm sure I've been put on ignore by plenty of folks on this board, that's the concept.

I don't do twitter and I damn sure ain't a Trump supporter, but this a warning to black content creators that you are building your platforms on sand. Don't be out here like Boosie begging Zuckerberg to turn your account back on.

Your thought process is somewhat flawed. I don't necessarily need to follow you to see your post or tweets on social media. If you're following someone who retweets or repost something, that post will show on your feed even if you are not interested or following the original poster. Even if a post is not reposted by a friend or associate, some post or stories trend based off views and or likes and you may see it. For example, I never followed Trump on Twitter but people would repost what he said weather it was to agree ,disagree or laugh about what was said.

You may say well just avoid/don't use social media and it is a fair argument. The issue is that it is becoming more and more ingrained in every day life. NEWS outlets use social media platforms as a form of communicating and reporting on things from social media. Even if you for example only came here, you'd still see content from social media platforms. The fact that you are talking about a post that Keri made is evidence of this fact. Even if someone attitude was that they typically only go into threads about women or porn related threads, they'd probably view Instagram to see more of those women or Twitter to review porn posted there. While you are there based on sexual desires, you may be exposed to post from these women or others that you don't agree with or inform you about the thoughts/views of others. You can choice not to directly engage in social media but you really can't escape it completely or it's influence.

 

[0utsyder]

That's irony of it. Social media is not a movie theater. It's more like yell Bomb or Fire in an open desert. You don't like it you don't have to follow that person, at least that's the concept. Shit, I'm sure I've been put on ignore by plenty of folks on this board, that's the concept.

I don't do twitter and I damn sure ain't a Trump supporter, but this a warning to black content creators that you are building your platforms on sand. Don't be out here like Boosie begging Zuckerberg to turn your account back on.

WHAT!?!?!

I can't with this, man. Look, this has NOTHING to do with Freedom of Speech. Trump isn't being arrested. The PRIVATE company chose to suspend HIM. You got a problem with what Twitter is doing cool, but trying to invoke Freedom of Speech is baseless.

 

[gutsdabeast]

So we jump to pedos from this shit? Everyone who is objective about this knows rules are being selectively applied. Which is cool to some, until they do it to you. "B-b-b-b-ut that's different. We have a reason to do what we do or say what we say." Yeah right, until some cac hippies say you don't.

This ain't about the fucking rules. This about who does it. Wish people would cut the fucking 'it's the rules' shit. Just be open and admit you are for selective enforcement of the TOS. Nothing wrong with that. That's how you feel. But don't hide behind 'it's the rules'. And don't complain when these folks turn on us. Could be next year. Could be 5 years from now. But it will happen.

This is how all power grabs work man. They pick a target folks don't like and do shit to them. The humanoids clap like seals. Those in control then slowly expand power. They get to tell us what we can and cannot say. They get to tell us what to be upset about. They get to tell us what to talk about. They get to say when and where they apply THEIR rules.

You cool with that shit? Posting from a site that basically would be classified as hate by the same fucking people? Swear this shit would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. So yeah, people in their emotions if they can't see posting these opinions from BGOL is fucking crazy.

If you don't like Twitter's rules, or AWS, or Facebook, or Instagram, etc etc. Don't use their service. Create your own.

Social media is not a right. Those companies owe you nothing. So equating them banning trump to Freedom of Speech is false.

If they enforce their rules on say a black agenda, you find another platform to get your point across.

Last I checked the post office still exists. Too costly? Ads in the newspaper? Censored? Corners or door to door.

Those platforms aren't infringing on your right to say what you want. They're making sure liability & blame can't end on their steps.

 

[Dr. Truth]

Lmbooooo this thread proves Brown Turd is a cac. Gene Cisco continues to fight for Trump and Hardacacz is another cracka.

 

[peterlongshort]

WHAT!?!?!

I can't with this, man. Look, this has NOTHING to do with Freedom of Speech. Trump isn't being arrested. The PRIVATE company chose to suspend HIM. You got a problem with what Twitter is doing cool, but trying to invoke Freedom of Speech is baseless.

We agree! This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it's the regulation of speech by private companies that is problematic. The airwaves are controlled and regulated by the public. If you say 'I want some hot pussy from Keri Hilson but I heard she has herpes' on broadcast TV or radio the station will be fined by the FCC and Keri's lawyers will hit you with a lawsuit for defamation. You have no such remedy on social platforms thanks to section 230, but the platforms themselves are growing bigger than traditional media. Like I said, she's not all the way wrong.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html

 

[peterlongshort]

Her little dumb fine ass...

 

[Dr. Truth]

We agree! This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it's the regulation of speech by private companies that is problematic. The airwaves are controlled and regulated by the public. If you say 'I want some hot pussy from Keri Hilson but I heard she has herpes' on broadcast TV or radio the station will be fined by the FCC and Keri's lawyers will hit you with a lawsuit for defamation. You have no such remedy on social platforms thanks to section 230, but the platforms themselves are growing bigger than traditional media. Like I said, she's not all the way wrong.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html

You’re an idiot . If a platform is being used to incite violence a company will remove the problem. That shit will come back to them if a person is killed by a person who used their business to continuously rile up people to commit terrorism. Social media bans Terrorists all the time. You want them to be allowed to post threats about blowing up and killing people too? You moron

 

[peterlongshort]

You’re an idiot . If a platform is being used to incite violence a company will remove the problem. That shit will come back to them if a person is killed by a person who used their business to continuously rile up people to commit terrorism. Social media bans Terrorists all the time. You want them to be allowed to post threats about blowing up and killing people too? You moron

Did Farrakhan incite violence? Yes or no? The dudes out there with the bow ties? Are they violent? But wait, a cat can do a whole drive by on IG live, punch out 3 little old ladies, piss on his ops grave and keep his account in good standing. Are they getting kicked off the platform?

 

[Dr. Truth]

Did Farrakhan incite violence? Yes or no? The dudes out there with the bow ties? Are they violent? But wait, a cat can do a whole drive by on IG live, punch out 3 little old ladies, piss on his ops grave and keep his account in good standing?

You’re really are a dumb ass .

 

[peterlongshort]

You’re really are a dumb ass .

That's what I thought.

 

[Dr. Truth]

That's what I thought.

Me too , you don’t deserve a real response. At all

 

[peterlongshort]

Me too , you don’t deserve a real response. At all

I wouldn't respond to me either, but you just did.

 

[crossovernegro]

Rules are always selectively applied... that's why trump wasn't banned sooner. They gave that mufucka a wide ass berth for the last 4 years. Now that's over and he's out. No emotions here... he should have been banned earlier, and now he is.

Yeah, I used nambla because it's a group that nobody outside of the ACLU is gonna try to cape for, but when it boils down to it, the scenario I described can be used to parallel this one, but nobody is gonna be using those "but what about this or that" argument when it comes to pedos.

So we jump to pedos from this shit? Everyone who is objective about this knows rules are being selectively applied. Which is cool to some, until they do it to you. "B-b-b-b-ut that's different. We have a reason to do what we do or say what we say." Yeah right, until some cac hippies say you don't.

This ain't about the fucking rules. This about who does it. Wish people would cut the fucking 'it's the rules' shit. Just be open and admit you are for selective enforcement of the TOS. Nothing wrong with that. That's how you feel. But don't hide behind 'it's the rules'. And don't complain when these folks turn on us. Could be next year. Could be 5 years from now. But it will happen.

This is how all power grabs work man. They pick a target folks don't like and do shit to them. The humanoids clap like seals. Those in control then slowly expand power. They get to tell us what we can and cannot say. They get to tell us what to be upset about. They get to tell us what to talk about. They get to say when and where they apply THEIR rules.

You cool with that shit? Posting from a site that basically would be classified as hate by the same fucking people? Swear this shit would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. So yeah, people in their emotions if they can't see posting these opinions from BGOL is fucking crazy.

 

[gene cisco]

If you don't like Twitter's rules, or AWS, or Facebook, or Instagram, etc etc. Don't use their service. Create your own.

Social media is not a right. Those companies owe you nothing. So equating them banning trump to Freedom of Speech is false.

If they enforce their rules on say a black agenda, you find another platform to get your point across.

Last I checked the post office still exists. Too costly? Ads in the newspaper? Censored? Corners or door to door.

Those platforms aren't infringing on your right to say what you want. They're making sure liability & blame can't end on their steps.

I for one never equated banning Trump or any of this shit to freedom of speech. It's just funny how selective these rules for the private companies are applied. Again, you cats posting all this pro-censorship shit from BGOL. From fucking BGOL. So it's all cool when folks who declare their pronouns want BGOL off the web, right? Just create our own. Simple as that.

Do you think any of the hippies you agreeing with would cosign this website? I'll answer that for you. Hell no.

If this is about liability and blame, why don't these platforms apply this shit elsewhere? No wonder why the world is clowning the censorship and folks don't even like Trump. Fuck a Trump.

 

[hardawayz16]

If you don't like Twitter's rules, or AWS, or Facebook, or Instagram, etc etc. Don't use their service. Create your own.

Social media is not a right. Those companies owe you nothing. So equating them banning trump to Freedom of Speech is false.

Yeah... where does this end? They control social media, they control video sites, they control the app stores, they control biggest, most robust cloud servers.

"Hey, if you don't like the rules that the oligarchs who run the modern internet selectively enforce, just create your own internet!"

Those platforms aren't infringing on your right to say what you want. They're making sure liability & blame can't end on their steps.

Thats the whole point of section 230.

 

[hardawayz16]

No wonder why the world is clowning the censorship and folks don't even like Trump. Fuck a Trump.

Facts

Germany and France Oppose Trump’s Twitter Exile

Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.

 

[gutsdabeast]

Yeah... where does this end? They control social media, they control video sites, they control the app stores, they control biggest, most robust cloud servers.

"Hey, if you don't like the rules that the oligarchs who run the modern internet selectively enforce, just create your own internet!"



Thats the whole point of section 230.

Who's they? I'm just saying your voice can still be heard without the internet. There are other mediums.

Twitter can't shut you up. They can if you use THEIR platform. But you have options to be heard. The internet just happens to be the easiest & most widespread.

That's like if you invite a stranger to your house. Set a bunch of rules & they break all of them.

You can let them continue to stay at your crib. Or you can kick them the fuck out.

Your house isn't the only one on the block. It's the most popular. So if they want to enjoy all you have to offer they have to play by YOUR rules.

Example isn't exactly apples. But you get the point.

Your point is that you can't voice your opinion if you can't express it on the biggest most used platform (Twitter).

If Twitter decides to censor all Tweets criticizing Biden, they can because it's their ball.

People have the option to accept that censorship & continue using the service or go elsewhere.

Just as AWS has the option to boot parler from their servers. If people don't like it, boycott.

 

[crossovernegro]

Soooo basically Angela Merkel understands free speech about as much as Keri Hilson.... cool

Facts

Germany and France Oppose Trump’s Twitter Exile

Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.

 

[8/11Streetz]

Fake woke ass.

 

[hardawayz16]

Your point is that you can't voice your opinion if you can't express it on the biggest most used platform (Twitter).

No, my point is its wrong for these huge companies, which function as public utilities at this point, to regulate speech and selectively enforce their rules due to public pressure. This type of power can be easily abused.

 

[therealjondoe]

Ask Merkel if she is for free speech why not allow nazi flags in Germany.
It's just free speech right

 

[HeathCliff]

Ask Merkel if she is for free speech why not allow nazi flags in Germany.
It's just free speech right

Good point

 

[hardawayz16]

Ask Merkel if she is for free speech why not allow nazi flags in Germany.
It's just free speech right

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies."

Guess you missed the bolded part.

 

[gutsdabeast]

No, my point is its wrong for these huge companies, which function as public utilities at this point, to regulate speech and selectively enforce their rules due to public pressure. This type of power can be easily abused.

Is Twitter currently considered a public utility or a private company?

 

[chitownsfinest]

Soooo basically Angela Merkel understands free speech about as much as Keri Hilson.... cool

Dummies on here playing checkers in a chess world. Other countries like Twitter because prez chump regularly posts state secrets on there plus gives foreign nations a direct view into his pea brain.

And Twitter is a business. Read the fucking Constitution...there is no "right to tweet" .

Some mental midgets on this board.

 

[peterlongshort]

Who's they? I'm just saying your voice can still be heard without the internet. There are other mediums.

Twitter can't shut you up. They can if you use THEIR platform. But you have options to be heard. The internet just happens to be the easiest & most widespread.

That's like if you invite a stranger to your house. Set a bunch of rules & they break all of them.

You can let them continue to stay at your crib. Or you can kick them the fuck out.

Your house isn't the only one on the block. It's the most popular. So if they want to enjoy all you have to offer they have to play by YOUR rules.

Example isn't exactly apples. But you get the point.

Your point is that you can't voice your opinion if you can't express it on the biggest most used platform (Twitter).

If Twitter decides to censor all Tweets criticizing Biden, they can because it's their ball.

People have the option to accept that censorship & continue using the service or go elsewhere.

Just as AWS has the option to boot parler from their servers. If people don't like it, boycott.

What if I bought all of the houses on the block, then the neighborhood, then the city, then the county, then the state. Where will you go then?

2-3 companies control 95% of the social media market. If Zukerberg wanted too he could give HNIC a cool 5 million for this site and shut it down the next day. No more BGOL.

 

[woodchuck]

This thread...

 

[guyver]

What if I bought all of the houses on the block, then the neighborhood, then the city, then the county, then the state. Where will you go then?

2-3 companies control 95% of the social media market. If Zukerberg wanted too he could give HNIC a cool 5 million for this site and shut it down the next day. No more BGOL.

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with your stance on companies having monopolies. However, that is different than freedom of speech and there are already laws against having monopolies.

That is part of the reason these companies are being constantly brought before congress. The government doesn't like the fact that these tech companies have so much indirect control. Them caring about your privacy is bullshit and at best they want easier access to the data those companies have on us.

 

[hardawayz16]

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with your stance on companies having monopolies. However, that is different than freedom of speech and there are already laws against having monopolies.

Eh...I dunno bout that. The internet is a huge part of our daily lives. All the major internet companies scrubbing your presence from their platforms within 48 hours of each other should be concerning.

 

[BigDaddyBuk]

I think we are going in the same direction but....Social media functions as the editors and the facilitators of speech. If someone says some foul shit about you on Facebook you can't sue Facebook for defamation, they will say they have no control over the content. You can sue the shit out of Gawker or the Washington Post, but Facebook, you can't touch them. But the minute you say something they don't like, now all of a sudden they have control of the content.

Yes you can sue facebook for facilitating defamation or inciting violence, etc.

 

[godofwine]

I got banned from Twitter because I said a Rush Limbaugh will die a painful death and prayers to save him will fall on the ears of Helen Keller

But I did not tell a lie, and I did not wish for his death as Twitter said I did. Stage 4 lung cancer is painful and it is also incurable so prayers to save them will fall on deaf ears. It might have been insensitive oh, what it wasn't wishing for his death

But since at least September, right-wingers have been reporting any tweet that offended they're fucking snowflake asses and Gettin the person banned. I still haven't been reinstated

 

[peterlongshort]

Yes you can sue facebook for facilitating defamation or inciting violence, etc.

This is incorrect. See section 230. You cannot. You can sue HNIC, but not facebook.

 

[BigDaddyBuk]

This is incorrect. See section 230. You cannot. You can sue HNIC, but not facebook.

Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to still remove material illegal on a federal level such as copyright infringement. In 2018, Section 230 was amended by the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (FOSTA-SESTA) to require the removal of material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws. In the following years, protections from Section 230 have come under more scrutiny on issues related to hate speech and ideological biases in relation to the power technology companies can hold on political discussions, and became a major issue during the 2020 United States presidential election.

So again, you can sue Facebook if they have been warned to remove defamatory content but refuse to.

 

[peterlongshort]

Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to still remove material illegal on a federal level such as copyright infringement. In 2018, Section 230 was amended by the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (FOSTA-SESTA) to require the removal of material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws. In the following years, protections from Section 230 have come under more scrutiny on issues related to hate speech and ideological biases in relation to the power technology companies can hold on political discussions, and became a major issue during the 2020 United States presidential election.

So again, you can sue Facebook if they have been warned to remove defamatory content but refuse to.

Nope. Defamation, libel, slander are all common law torts, there is no Federal libel slander, etc, counterpart. Section 230 does not give immunitty of other federal laws, such as copyright, kiddie porn, shit like that. Many have tried to climb that mountain, everyone has failed.