Red Mosquito

bune wrote:What a minute...the Right is anti-globalism. Or did I take some crazy pills?

There's long been a strain of anti-globalism on the left, too. Think, for example, the Battle of Seattle in 1999.

cutuphalfdead wrote:It also doesn't mean private organizations are required to give you a platform.

I don't care one way or the other what Twitter does with Trump, but this.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It also doesn't mean private organizations are required to give you a platform.

I don't care one way or the other what Twitter does with Trump, but this.

twitter informed some guy last week that it was suspending his account for 7 days because he tweeted in response to a promotional Kellogg's ad that he would "totally fuck tony the tiger." yet some guy can threaten nuclear war against another country or foment racial tension and riots without it being a violation of twitter's terms and conditions.

McParadigm wrote:I'm torn between "ha ha populism" and "won't Americans' famed inability to contribute enough to retirement limit the effect of this?"

Here's what's most bothersome about it, the reason 401ks became the standard for retirement funding is so corps. could do away with pensions and pocket the money already acrrued.thus screwing probably millions of retirement aged people in the process.

401ks or 403bs are not meant to be the solitary way a person saves for retirement, it was developed as supplement and i think originally for an arm of the US govt? Something like the post office maybe? I dont remember but it doesn't matter because now a 401( is it through your company, and it's not going to be nearly enough to survive on for most of us, yet these fuckers get to take even MORE away to get richer? Fuck them. Fuck everyone really. Hah

malice wrote:

4/5 wrote:

bune wrote:

The left really is going to get everything wrong in response to Trump, aren't they? Anti-globalism and anti-free speech. Yay.

I don't necessarily disagree but im pretty sure free speech doesn't cover yelling "fire" in a crowded theater....

cutuphalfdead wrote:It also doesn't mean private organizations are required to give you a platform.

It doesn't and it doesn't. You're both right. Private companies absolutely have the right to limit speech, so Twitter can do whatever it wants, and people can make foolish suggestions like the one Ms. Plame made.

I think that tweet is emblematic of a growing attitude that seems ready to embrace limits of speech, both public and private, and I find that very worrisome.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no law against shouting fire in a crowded theater (and Hutchins did it before he died), and the judge that coined the phrase changed course. Though using that nonsense to prosecute a communist (as was the original case) can't be all bad.

www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/

What's the strategy with the Plame thing though? Either it fails and Trump fans laugh, or they buy a struggling company and immediately remove a large portion of its user base. But I guess a billion dollars is a small price to pay if you think a tweet will start World War 3.

I'm concerned about how a sitting president uses this type of outlet to make threats against countries like north Korea which could cause an otherwise nonexistent threat to escalate into a war, honestly. This is the first time in history an idiotic President has had the ability to toss out every dumb and unexamined thought that crosses his mind to an audience of millions without care for the possible repercussions. So i don't know... Is free speech over social media that's accessed and publicized worldwide an acceptable reason to cause far reaching future problems? That's not rhetorical.
I dont know. But since this is the man in power, and no one apparently has any influence over his public statements, what does free speech on an idealistic level gain us?

BurtReynolds wrote:Contrary to popular belief, there is no law against shouting fire in a crowded theater (and Hutchins did it before he died), and the judge that coined the phrase changed course. Though using that nonsense to prosecute a communist (as was the original case) can't be all bad.

http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/

What's the strategy with the Plame thing though? Either it fails and Trump fans laugh, or they buy a struggling company and immediately remove a large portion of its user base. But I guess a billion dollars is a small price to pay if you think a tweet will start World War 3.

Do you believe the leadership in north Korea has the intellectual maturity to understand the donald is just being the donald when he makes threats?

North Korean sabre rattling is mostly to keep their citizens in line. I could be wrong, but I think they know war would be suicide. If they really believe their own hype, I doubt trump's babbling would make any difference.

McParadigm wrote:This thread is pretty amazing.

You'd think they would be more creative with the names.

if Twitteraudit.com is legit, then half of CNN's 24 million followers are fake.

And most of @foxnews.

But @infowars users are strictly legit, baby!

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It also doesn't mean private organizations are required to give you a platform.

I don't care one way or the other what Twitter does with Trump, but this.

twitter informed some guy last week that it was suspending his account for 7 days because he tweeted in response to a promotional Kellogg's ad that he would "totally fuck tony the tiger." yet some guy can threaten nuclear war against another country or foment racial tension and riots without it being a violation of twitter's terms and conditions.

in fairness had the guy ended it with, it'd be GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRReaaaaaaaat, they wouldnt have said anything

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It also doesn't mean private organizations are required to give you a platform.

I don't care one way or the other what Twitter does with Trump, but this.

twitter informed some guy last week that it was suspending his account for 7 days because he tweeted in response to a promotional Kellogg's ad that he would "totally fuck tony the tiger." yet some guy can threaten nuclear war against another country or foment racial tension and riots without it being a violation of twitter's terms and conditions.

correct, because jack dorsey is an asshole

96583UP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It also doesn't mean private organizations are required to give you a platform.

I don't care one way or the other what Twitter does with Trump, but this.

twitter informed some guy last week that it was suspending his account for 7 days because he tweeted in response to a promotional Kellogg's ad that he would "totally fuck tony the tiger." yet some guy can threaten nuclear war against another country or foment racial tension and riots without it being a violation of twitter's terms and conditions.

correct, because jack dorsey is an asshole

Ah, right, because Twitter censoring the president would fix... something.

If the Daily Stormer gets kicked off the internet, what happens? Do its adherents go away, or do they do something worse than bitching anonymously online? I guess we'll find out.

96583UP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:It also doesn't mean private organizations are required to give you a platform.

I don't care one way or the other what Twitter does with Trump, but this.

twitter informed some guy last week that it was suspending his account for 7 days because he tweeted in response to a promotional Kellogg's ad that he would "totally fuck tony the tiger." yet some guy can threaten nuclear war against another country or foment racial tension and riots without it being a violation of twitter's terms and conditions.

correct, because jack dorsey is an asshole

It's far worse, he's a Progressive, so an asshole who claims unquestionable moral superiority.

But. Twitter would have already died had it not been for Trump.

Bi_3 wrote:But. Twitter would have already died had it not been for Trump.

That's a ridiculous assertion

malice wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:But. Twitter would have already died had it not been for Trump.

That's a ridiculous assertion

Try the google. You might be surprised.

Bi_3 wrote:

malice wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:But. Twitter would have already died had it not been for Trump.

That's a ridiculous assertion

Try the google. You might be surprised.

Twitter's story is a lot more complicated than that. The number of unique (human) users has consistently climbed, even when traffic overall was dropping. And while traffic has climbed significantly since the start of the election process, its presumptive to state any single cause with certainty.

Twitter had already started to become a hub for political junkies and journalists/analysts before the primaries began. Add to that the speed of information soaring past us these days, the increasing inability/unwillingness of tv to keep up with breaking news (valuing punditry first and foremost), and the pull of the Russian investigation story. I would argue that if twitter had been around in 2001, we would be saying 9/11 and the events that followed "saved twitter." It just can't compete with Facebook for capitalizing on the fetishization of social voyuerism, but it is sadly the most effective tool currently out there for tracking large scale events. It's popularity will wax and wane dependent upon the degree to which people feel personally attached to those current events, until a better tool comes along.