BREAKING:
I’m suing Twitter.
Today, Larry Klayman, former federal prosecutor and founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, amended the antitrust class action complaint he filed for Freedom Watch against leftist social media companies Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Instagram under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act for agreeing among themselves and acting as a monopoly to restrain trade and discriminate against conservatives. Klayman had this to say on filing the Amended Complaint: "Added as a lead plaintiff today was Laura Loomer, a courageous Jewish female journalist who was just banned from Twitter and Facebook for criticizing a Muslim congresswoman. The retaliation by Twitter and Facebook, as set forth in the Amended Complaint, was not only a violation of our antitrust laws and other laws, but wreaked of anti-Semitism against a Jewish conservative woman.
I don't think she wins. But it forces a lot of their discrimination against conservatives into the public in discovery. And it ends the legal and public illusion that they are some sort of non-biased simple carriers.
The consistency in their actions on gray topics makes it clear that they are coordinating with Democratic SJW groups.
If you win the case, I suppose we can demand equal time on Sinclair's local news to counter the propaganda stories being must-run on the local news. Y'all good with that?
Or we can insert 4 new hosts over on Fox and Friends to counter Ducey and company.
(11-28-2018 04:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: Tom, honest question..
Why does farrakhan, who refers to Jews as “termites”, still have an account?
What about sara jeong, who refers to white people as “groveling goblins” and suggested that they are genetically inferior? Textbook “dehumanizing behavior” violation of the TOS. She not only has her account, but has since been verified, i.e. twitter endorsed, solely because of which corporation just so happens to sign her paycheck.
And I am not suggesting that they be banned, I am for more speech not less.
The alt-left knows they are on wrong side of history on this one, as it is getting ever more difficult to justify their position as to which people who just so happen to be members of certain “marginalized” groups are okay for criticism and which are not, etc.
Like I said previously, it is only going to take one overreach for this house of cards to fall. Jesse Kelly was close. I think Ben Shapiro will be the one.
(11-29-2018 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: If you win the case, I suppose we can demand equal time on Sinclair's local news to counter the propaganda stories being must-run on the local news. Y'all good with that?
Or we can insert 4 new hosts over on Fox and Friends to counter Ducey and company.
You sure you want that precedent established?
Thee is. Difference between an individual Twiiter account and a national newscast. Btw, for the 3rd time why do you prefer Islam over other religions when you claim to be an atheist.
(11-28-2018 04:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: Tom, honest question..
Why does farrakhan, who refers to Jews as “termites”, still have an account?
What about sara jeong, who refers to white people as “groveling goblins” and suggested that they are genetically inferior? Textbook “dehumanizing behavior” violation of the TOS. She not only has her account, but has since been verified, i.e. twitter endorsed, solely because of which corporation just so happens to sign her paycheck.
And I am not suggesting that they be banned, I am for more speech not less.
The alt-left knows they are on wrong side of history on this one, as it is getting ever more difficult to justify their position as to which people who just so happen to be members of certain “marginalized” groups are okay for criticism and which are not, etc.
Like I said previously, it is only going to take one overreach for this house of cards to fall. Jesse Kelly was close. I think Ben Shapiro will be the one.
Bump.
You ignored this, tom. I think we all know why.
I have no idea how Twitter and Facebook make their decisions.
If you'd like to discuss Louis Farrakhan, a low rent nobody, you are welcome to post a thread on it. I probably won't be commenting on it. He's not worth 2 keystrokes IMHO. I would think, that HAD Louis Farrakhan said such things ON TWITTER, that he probably would be banned for it, but even if not, I really think that you'd probably be better off asking that question to Twitter.
I'm under no obligation to switch the discussion to whatever what if example you wish to posit. You are free to pose them, but I'm also free to ignore it.
My point is that if you can not serve someone for being LGBT, and you can run stilted stories on Fox News and bar equal time....then I don't see why you'd be concerned about Twitter and FB making business decisions.
Again, Ben Shapiro is perfectly welcome to start his own social media platforms. He can go raise the capital and convince people to join the platform.
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2018 01:29 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
(11-29-2018 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: If you win the case, I suppose we can demand equal time on Sinclair's local news to counter the propaganda stories being must-run on the local news. Y'all good with that?
Or we can insert 4 new hosts over on Fox and Friends to counter Ducey and company.
You sure you want that precedent established?
Of course you know this is apples and oranges. If they win, twitter and facebook quit banning people on their political affiliation.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC all have a lot further than Fox to present both sides fairly. That's a path the Democrats would fear, losing their near monopoly on the media.
(11-28-2018 04:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: Tom, honest question..
Why does farrakhan, who refers to Jews as “termites”, still have an account?
What about sara jeong, who refers to white people as “groveling goblins” and suggested that they are genetically inferior? Textbook “dehumanizing behavior” violation of the TOS. She not only has her account, but has since been verified, i.e. twitter endorsed, solely because of which corporation just so happens to sign her paycheck.
And I am not suggesting that they be banned, I am for more speech not less.
The alt-left knows they are on wrong side of history on this one, as it is getting ever more difficult to justify their position as to which people who just so happen to be members of certain “marginalized” groups are okay for criticism and which are not, etc.
Like I said previously, it is only going to take one overreach for this house of cards to fall. Jesse Kelly was close. I think Ben Shapiro will be the one.
Bump.
You ignored this, tom. I think we all know why.
I have no idea how Twitter and Facebook make their decisions.
If you'd like to discuss Louis Farrakhan, a low rent nobody, you are welcome to post a thread on it. I probably won't be commenting on it. He's not worth 2 keystrokes IMHO. I would think, that HAD Louis Farrakhan said such things ON TWITTER, that he probably would be banned for it, but even if not, I really think that you'd probably be better off asking that question to Twitter.
I'm under no obligation to switch the discussion to whatever what if example you wish to posit. You are free to pose them, but I'm also free to ignore it.
My point is that if you can not serve someone for being LGBT, and you can run stilted stories on Fox News and bar equal time....then I don't see why you'd be concerned about Twitter and FB making business decisions.
Again, Ben Shapiro is perfectly welcome to start his own social media platforms. He can go raise the capital and convince people to join the platform.
Cat got your tongue, huh?
Like I said, we both know you're on the wrong side of history. I'm a real liberal. You're an authoritarian. I'm for more speech. You're for less. I'm for the best ideas rising to the top. You're for suppressing ideas that you know you can't compete with. Sad!
P.S. Twitter monitors and bans people for off-platform behavior. Please reference the below article for confirmation from far-right outlet Mashable. Talking point, debunked.
(11-28-2018 04:07 PM)Kronke Wrote: Tom, honest question..
Why does farrakhan, who refers to Jews as “termites”, still have an account?
What about sara jeong, who refers to white people as “groveling goblins” and suggested that they are genetically inferior? Textbook “dehumanizing behavior” violation of the TOS. She not only has her account, but has since been verified, i.e. twitter endorsed, solely because of which corporation just so happens to sign her paycheck.
And I am not suggesting that they be banned, I am for more speech not less.
The alt-left knows they are on wrong side of history on this one, as it is getting ever more difficult to justify their position as to which people who just so happen to be members of certain “marginalized” groups are okay for criticism and which are not, etc.
Like I said previously, it is only going to take one overreach for this house of cards to fall. Jesse Kelly was close. I think Ben Shapiro will be the one.
Bump.
You ignored this, tom. I think we all know why.
I have no idea how Twitter and Facebook make their decisions.
If you'd like to discuss Louis Farrakhan, a low rent nobody, you are welcome to post a thread on it. I probably won't be commenting on it. He's not worth 2 keystrokes IMHO. I would think, that HAD Louis Farrakhan said such things ON TWITTER, that he probably would be banned for it, but even if not, I really think that you'd probably be better off asking that question to Twitter.
I'm under no obligation to switch the discussion to whatever what if example you wish to posit. You are free to pose them, but I'm also free to ignore it.
My point is that if you can not serve someone for being LGBT, and you can run stilted stories on Fox News and bar equal time....then I don't see why you'd be concerned about Twitter and FB making business decisions.
Again, Ben Shapiro is perfectly welcome to start his own social media platforms. He can go raise the capital and convince people to join the platform.
Cat got your tongue, huh?
Like I said, we both know you're on the wrong side of history. I'm a real liberal. You're an authoritarian. I'm for more speech. You're for less. I'm for the best ideas rising to the top. You're for suppressing ideas that you know you can't compete with. Sad!
P.S. Twitter monitors and bans people for off-platform behavior. Please reference the below article for confirmation from far-right outlet Mashable. Talking point, debunked.
Twitter customer service probably has an email or something you can report him if you'd like to. Don't care.
I just find it rich that people who defend discrimination by buisiness seem to whine like a stuck pig when they don't like the decisions that businesses make.
No one is suppressing speech at Twitter. No one is stopping the alt-rightists from forming their own media companies and internet companies.
Don't like internet concentration and media mergers, well then you can thank Trump swamp creature Ajit Pai for that. We have to put up with Sinclair, you have to put up with FB and Twitter.
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2018 01:51 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
https://www.myajc.com/blog/get-schooled/...HFqJA25bK/
Newspapers subcontract comment section to Facebook. So you not only have to have an Atlanta Journal Constituion account to comment, you have to have a Facebook account and use it. And, of course, the liberal AJC gets to use the progressive Facebook filters (plus likely gets paid by Facebook as they extend their tendrils).
I think that association with James O'Keefe's disinformation game pretty much gets her in the 'we don't want her on our site, spreading stilted stuff and calling it reporting'.
Was she really criticizing those that are members of religions that oppress homosexuals, or just criticizing Muslims for doing it?
Either way, Twitter and FB and Instagram are perfectly able to decide what kind of discourse belongs on their privately owned forums. They are under no obligation to give her a platform. As Jjoey52 referred to in his post, there are other fora available.
Just how was O’Keefe’s work disinformation? Also, as far as I know Muslims are the only ones throwing homosexuals off high buildings.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Is there really a difference between being killed by being thrown off a building by a Muslim and being lynched by a Christian mob in Cameroon? Look, if you want to go after those that seek to imprison or execute persons simply because they are Gay, then I'm all in. But I'm not interested in being used by someone to blame all Muslims when all Muslims, and specifically not Congresswoman elect Omar, don't support or do what they are being accused of doing. Especially from people that appear to not really care about Gays being persecuted when it doesn't fit their own political narrative.
![[Image: 7rj902.jpg]](https://snag.gy/7rj902.jpg)
![[Image: 180203094905-obama-farrakhan-2006-photo-full-169.jpg]](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180203094905-obama-farrakhan-2006-photo-full-169.jpg)
![[Image: aptopix_aretha_franklin_59634_c0-60-4302...77a1f00337]](https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2018/08/31/aptopix_aretha_franklin_59634_c0-60-4302-2568_s885x516.jpg?871586b1ad460052126dc912f6a96277a1f00337)
![[Image: beniYl.jpg]](https://snag.gy/beniYl.jpg)
![[Image: DtMyYpWXQAAU6HH.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtMyYpWXQAAU6HH.jpg:large)