(11-30-2017 10:31 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:17 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 03:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 03:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Who gets to decide who gets censored? Trump? Rose McGowan? A Twitter mob?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Twitter. It's a business, and they can restrict access for any variety of reasons. But their consumers do have a voice.

They are a private entity that functions as a key tool and outlet for public speech and communication.

Sort of like pencil companies prohibiting you from using their pencil to write things their CEO doesn't agree with.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

UCF is actually correct on this one. But also note that Trump doesn't have to use Twitter either. He can move to another platform and Twitter would suffer bigly. Tough balancing act for Twitter to shut down what they don't like but not to overstep the point to where they ruin themselves in the process.

Yep, I agree with UCF. Can't believe I just typed that.

You'd probably find that if you got past the knee-jerk BOO-LIBERAL! reaction so many people seem to have here, that would happen more than you'd initially think.

(11-30-2017 10:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 10:31 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:17 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 03:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Twitter. It's a business, and they can restrict access for any variety of reasons. But their consumers do have a voice.

They are a private entity that functions as a key tool and outlet for public speech and communication.

Sort of like pencil companies prohibiting you from using their pencil to write things their CEO doesn't agree with.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

UCF is actually correct on this one. But also note that Trump doesn't have to use Twitter either. He can move to another platform and Twitter would suffer bigly. Tough balancing act for Twitter to shut down what they don't like but not to overstep the point to where they ruin themselves in the process.

Yep, I agree with UCF. Can't believe I just typed that.

You'd probably find that if you got past the knee-jerk BOO-LIBERAL! reaction so many people seem to have here, that would happen more than you'd initially think.

I tend to think for myself so I can agree with anyone as long as he/she makes an effort to actually make sense. That doesn't happen often here. That goes for both sides sometimes.

(11-29-2017 04:17 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 03:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 03:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Who gets to decide who gets censored? Trump? Rose McGowan? A Twitter mob?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Twitter. It's a business, and they can restrict access for any variety of reasons. But their consumers do have a voice.

They are a private entity that functions as a key tool and outlet for public speech and communication.

Sort of like pencil companies prohibiting you from using their pencil to write things their CEO doesn't agree with.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

UCF is actually correct on this one. But also note that Trump doesn't have to use Twitter either. He can move to another platform and Twitter would suffer bigly. Tough balancing act for Twitter to shut down what they don't like but not to overstep the point to where they ruin themselves in the process.

Ive thought of this.

Why doesn’t some enterprising smart person just come up with a competing product/site?

Call it NotTwitter or whatever, make it a decidedly neutral or even lean-right Home for the remaining sane people?

I started a Twitter acct shortly after it popped up somewhere, thought it could useful for business, perhaps...

That lasted about 6 months and realized it was a useless sandbox.

I can’t even stand to read it or follow along any more. Will just shut it down when I get around to it.

Useless nonsense.

(11-30-2017 12:03 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:17 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 03:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 03:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Who gets to decide who gets censored? Trump? Rose McGowan? A Twitter mob?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Twitter. It's a business, and they can restrict access for any variety of reasons. But their consumers do have a voice.

They are a private entity that functions as a key tool and outlet for public speech and communication.

Sort of like pencil companies prohibiting you from using their pencil to write things their CEO doesn't agree with.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

UCF is actually correct on this one. But also note that Trump doesn't have to use Twitter either. He can move to another platform and Twitter would suffer bigly. Tough balancing act for Twitter to shut down what they don't like but not to overstep the point to where they ruin themselves in the process.

Ive thought of this.

Why doesn’t some enterprising smart person just come up with a competing product/site?

Call it NotTwitter or whatever, make it a decidedly neutral or even lean-right Home for the remaining sane people?

I started a Twitter acct shortly after it popped up somewhere, thought it could useful for business, perhaps...

That lasted about 6 months and realized it was a useless sandbox.

I can’t even stand to read it or follow along any more. Will just shut it down when I get around to it.

Useless nonsense.

What makes you think this doesn't already exist?

(11-30-2017 11:30 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 10:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 10:31 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:17 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 04:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  They are a private entity that functions as a key tool and outlet for public speech and communication.

Sort of like pencil companies prohibiting you from using their pencil to write things their CEO doesn't agree with.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

UCF is actually correct on this one. But also note that Trump doesn't have to use Twitter either. He can move to another platform and Twitter would suffer bigly. Tough balancing act for Twitter to shut down what they don't like but not to overstep the point to where they ruin themselves in the process.

Yep, I agree with UCF. Can't believe I just typed that.

You'd probably find that if you got past the knee-jerk BOO-LIBERAL! reaction so many people seem to have here, that would happen more than you'd initially think.

I tend to think for myself so I can agree with anyone as long as he/she makes an effort to actually make sense. That doesn't happen often here. That goes for both sides sometimes.

Well, that's a fair enough criticism in general.