(08-19-2021 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the media thingy, in today's Washington Post:

Quote:The ability of the Taliban and its supporters to operate substantially within the rules of companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube has left Silicon Valley vulnerable to intensifying political crosscurrents: U.S. conservatives have been demanding to know why former president Donald Trump has been banned from Twitter while various Taliban figures have not. The answer, analysts said, may simply be that Trump’s posts for years challenged platform rules against hate speech and inciting violence. Today’s Taliban, by and large, does not.

So the Post writers make a great effort to make sure you know that difference,

Let break down this media's case for us.

The WaPo says Donald Trump cannot be permitted to be on social media because he represents the potential of inciting violence.

But, the shitbirds that have exacted violence for decades, and is currently in the process of being cruelly violent, misogynist, homophobic, and great fans of a good stoning to death or two can be on Twitter because…they do not…send mean tweets, I guess?!

Yet, here is the WaPo making their best case to buttress that difference.

Love to listen to the left parse their way around hypocrisy.

So it’s either private companies should not be allowed to police their own users or private companies should police their users outside of their preview. I love listening to the right finding a way to pretzel any situation into “liberals bad.”

And Lad parses...

So he defends the banning of Trump AND the embracing of the Taliban.

Got it.

So you’d rather Twitter not ban anyone ever? Or would you prefer that they ban people for offenses unrelated to its use? Those are the only two options if you aren’t ok with this outcome.