By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Twitter statement reveals why it won't ban Trump over his controversial tweets

Nem said:
DonFerrari said:
Yes let's silence all we disagree with. A very good policy.

What he is saying is against the terms of service. Anyone else would be banned. If anything he is getting special treatment.

Like the verified users who say stuff like "kill white people"?



Around the Network

Because he brings to much attention to the platform.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Aeolus451 said:
Nem said:

What he is saying is against the terms of service. Anyone else would be banned. If anything he is getting special treatment.

Like the verified users who say stuff like "kill white people"?

Please don't tell.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

Any other hate speech and threats of violence should also be banned.  However, it is natural that people are more concerned with the President of the United states than random people on Facebook.

Sorry man, but the cases seem over here isn't of the importance of the person but the speach.

We have had people like Boulos and another two that are president of the Landless Workers, National Unions and Homeless Worker saying they middle class should be killed or that if Lula is jailed they will shoot down capitalists or throw brazil on fire, etc... they didn't get any flack on facebook. We have had famous singer saying police should be killed also not be moderated. While we have people saying "I don't like gay people" getting banned in less than 1h after the comment was made.

So the social medias aren't really complying with their ToS at all.

Your initial post just mentioned random facebook posts, so you're moving the goalposts.  But no matter, those people should be banned too.  



DonFerrari said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

And if they were tweeting their threats then they should be banned from Twitter too. You could've placed my response there on your own. 

Jeez that really shouldn't have surprised me but it did.. 

But again you're not actually reading what I'm saying. I said that I see hate speech all the time on Facebook without anything being done about it. Not that it doesn't happen. 

I didn't place your response because my point wasn't about your opinion on all deserving a ban (which is what their ToS would say) against my opinion that all should be allowed to say what they want and if they break a law they should be jailed, I was pointing out that the movements that usually push for the bands of people like Trump would condone Bernie saying something equivalent. But since you didn't agree or disagree with it there was no point putting your response.

What type of hate speech you have been seem not being taken care of at all?

That would be the case in the public square. But twitter is a private company, they are legally within their right to ban users for speech. The only thing they nor the government can do is arrest you for it. 

And again, those people are wrong if they're hypocritcal. Although I'd wonder what world I was living in if I saw Bernie tweeting like Trump though,or any leader of a first world country. I literally have to go on his twitter whenever I see a viral tweet of his just to make sure it's real and sadly 99% of the time it is.

I've seen homophobia, racism, sexism etc. I like in the UK I have 'chav's' on my facebook and others that are friends of friends that have written everything without any Ban. Writing about 'paki's' and muslims etc. Facebook are very lax when it comes to enforcing their rules. 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network

Yeah they just dont dare to...



JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Sorry man, but the cases seem over here isn't of the importance of the person but the speach.

We have had people like Boulos and another two that are president of the Landless Workers, National Unions and Homeless Worker saying they middle class should be killed or that if Lula is jailed they will shoot down capitalists or throw brazil on fire, etc... they didn't get any flack on facebook. We have had famous singer saying police should be killed also not be moderated. While we have people saying "I don't like gay people" getting banned in less than 1h after the comment was made.

So the social medias aren't really complying with their ToS at all.

Your initial post just mentioned random facebook posts, so you're moving the goalposts.  But no matter, those people should be banned too.  

Where in "Yes let's silence all we disagree with. A very good policy. " I stated general random facebook posts?


ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said:

I didn't place your response because my point wasn't about your opinion on all deserving a ban (which is what their ToS would say) against my opinion that all should be allowed to say what they want and if they break a law they should be jailed, I was pointing out that the movements that usually push for the bands of people like Trump would condone Bernie saying something equivalent. But since you didn't agree or disagree with it there was no point putting your response.

What type of hate speech you have been seem not being taken care of at all?

That would be the case in the public square. But twitter is a private company, they are legally within their right to ban users for speech. The only thing they nor the government can do is arrest you for it. 

And again, those people are wrong if they're hypocritcal. Although I'd wonder what world I was living in if I saw Bernie tweeting like Trump though,or any leader of a first world country. I literally have to go on his twitter whenever I see a viral tweet of his just to make sure it's real and sadly 99% of the time it is.

I've seen homophobia, racism, sexism etc. I like in the UK I have 'chav's' on my facebook and others that are friends of friends that have written everything without any Ban. Writing about 'paki's' and muslims etc. Facebook are very lax when it comes to enforcing their rules. 

Have I said they aren't allowed to do it? I know they are a private corporation, that is even why I said they are free to not follow or enforce their ToS, I just said I'm against this part of it, simple as that.

May be a question of the bubble we leave within in facebook. But on my account I see a lot of those getting banned and "reverse racism" and manhating getting props and no ban.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

Your initial post just mentioned random facebook posts, so you're moving the goalposts.  But no matter, those people should be banned too.  

Where in "Yes let's silence all we disagree with. A very good policy. " I stated general random facebook posts?


ArchangelMadzz said:

That would be the case in the public square. But twitter is a private company, they are legally within their right to ban users for speech. The only thing they nor the government can do is arrest you for it. 

And again, those people are wrong if they're hypocritcal. Although I'd wonder what world I was living in if I saw Bernie tweeting like Trump though,or any leader of a first world country. I literally have to go on his twitter whenever I see a viral tweet of his just to make sure it's real and sadly 99% of the time it is.

I've seen homophobia, racism, sexism etc. I like in the UK I have 'chav's' on my facebook and others that are friends of friends that have written everything without any Ban. Writing about 'paki's' and muslims etc. Facebook are very lax when it comes to enforcing their rules. 

Have I said they aren't allowed to do it? I know they are a private corporation, that is even why I said they are free to not follow or enforce their ToS, I just said I'm against this part of it, simple as that.

May be a question of the bubble we leave within in facebook. But on my account I see a lot of those getting banned and "reverse racism" and manhating getting props and no ban.

"It's quite common on Brazilian facebook accounts and movements speaches."

There.



DonFerrari said: 
ArchangelMadzz said:

That would be the case in the public square. But twitter is a private company, they are legally within their right to ban users for speech. The only thing they nor the government can do is arrest you for it. 

And again, those people are wrong if they're hypocritcal. Although I'd wonder what world I was living in if I saw Bernie tweeting like Trump though,or any leader of a first world country. I literally have to go on his twitter whenever I see a viral tweet of his just to make sure it's real and sadly 99% of the time it is.

I've seen homophobia, racism, sexism etc. I like in the UK I have 'chav's' on my facebook and others that are friends of friends that have written everything without any Ban. Writing about 'paki's' and muslims etc. Facebook are very lax when it comes to enforcing their rules. 

Have I said they aren't allowed to do it? I know they are a private corporation, that is even why I said they are free to not follow or enforce their ToS, I just said I'm against this part of it, simple as that.

May be a question of the bubble we leave within in facebook. But on my account I see a lot of those getting banned and "reverse racism" and manhating getting props and no ban.

I think it's a pretty good idea to have a rule against inciting hatred or violence against an individual for a social media company.

Well considering you spend your free time looking for people who aren't banned for certain things it's not odd that you'd pay more attention to those who aren't getting banned.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Where in "Yes let's silence all we disagree with. A very good policy. " I stated general random facebook posts?


Have I said they aren't allowed to do it? I know they are a private corporation, that is even why I said they are free to not follow or enforce their ToS, I just said I'm against this part of it, simple as that.

May be a question of the bubble we leave within in facebook. But on my account I see a lot of those getting banned and "reverse racism" and manhating getting props and no ban.

"It's quite common on Brazilian facebook accounts and movements speaches."

There.

That wasn't my first post on this thread. And the "movement speaches" is something about random posters? Nope those are mouthpieces of some progressive movements.

ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said: 

Have I said they aren't allowed to do it? I know they are a private corporation, that is even why I said they are free to not follow or enforce their ToS, I just said I'm against this part of it, simple as that.

May be a question of the bubble we leave within in facebook. But on my account I see a lot of those getting banned and "reverse racism" and manhating getting props and no ban.

I think it's a pretty good idea to have a rule against inciting hatred or violence against an individual for a social media company.

Well considering you spend your free time looking for people who aren't banned for certain things it's not odd that you'd pay more attention to those who aren't getting banned.

Well not going to discuss what the company have to do or not, they decide if they do and if we don't agree we don't go there.

Well it may be a case of looking at the subject or not, for sure. But since we do agree on the premisse that all should be threated equally under the ToS independent of their reasoning or alignment there isn't much for us to discuss =]



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."