Twitter files

Status
Not open for further replies.
xtsho

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Hotrod2 said:
Haters are going to hate. They are also going to deflect rather than discuss the topic at hand.

Musk was not CEO of Twitter when Twitter was censoring free speech. And Twitter was actively suppressing conservative speech. For example: we now know they specifically targeted information about the hunter Biden laptop before Joe Biden's election and even afterwards.

We also know the CEO testified before Congress in 2018 and denied any suppression. Which turns out he perjured himself before Congress. If one would argue he did not know that Twitter was actively suppressing free speech then I would suggest he was a poor CEO at best.

I am interested to see; as more of Twitter's past is unveiled, just how much the alphabet police had to do in this suppression.

While social media is not bound by the First Amendment. Based on the information released about Twitter's past, we see they have selectively targeted conservatives. I understand many liberals would agree with and do agree with the negation and suppression of free speech as evidence by the comments on this thread.

I don't use twitter, because I'm sure there's more haters there than in this political section on roll it up. I do although enjoy the idea that Free Speech should never be suppressed.
Click to expand...
What the hell is this obsession with Hunter Biden's laptop? It's just ridiculous. Anything on that laptop is worthless anyway. There is no chain of custody. Who knows how many GOP hacks had their hands on it. That nonsense needs to just go away. It has nothing to do with Joe Biden and the 2020 election.

Twitter can selectively censor anything they want. And they didn't censor all tweets related to Hunter Biden but they did censor those that were posting pictures of his genitals.

I'm sick of this censorship talk over how social media entities delete posts or ban users. Free speech doesn't apply on those platforms so if you don't like how they're run don't use them. It's pretty simple. Start your own platform and make your own rules. Let people say whatever they want and spread whatever lies and conspiracies they want. Nobody is forced to use any of the platforms out there.

This is a moderated forum. Say really bad things and you can get censored and banned. There is nothing wrong with that either. Someone else pays for all of this and we're just guests. You can't go to someone's house and just do and say anything you want without expecting to get kicked out.

Twitter has a new owner and that owner is free to change the policies of twitter. If he decides to let all the conspiracy freaks run wild and post anything they want then that's his decision as well. People need to stop crying about these imaginary rights that don't exist. Go walk into a police station and start yelling obscenities and you'll find out that the First Amendment only goes so far and that you can't always say what you want. Free speech is not absolute.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Hotrod2 said:
Haters are going to hate. They are also going to deflect rather than discuss the topic at hand.

Musk was not CEO of Twitter when Twitter was censoring free speech. And Twitter was actively suppressing conservative speech. For example: we now know they specifically targeted information about the hunter Biden laptop before Joe Biden's election and even afterwards.

We also know the CEO testified before Congress in 2018 and denied any suppression. Which turns out he perjured himself before Congress. If one would argue he did not know that Twitter was actively suppressing free speech then I would suggest he was a poor CEO at best.

I am interested to see; as more of Twitter's past is unveiled, just how much the alphabet police had to do in this suppression.

While social media is not bound by the First Amendment. Based on the information released about Twitter's past, we see they have selectively targeted conservatives. I understand many liberals would agree with and do agree with the negation and suppression of free speech as evidence by the comments on this thread.

I don't use twitter, because I'm sure there's more haters there than in this political section on roll it up. I do although enjoy the idea that Free Speech should never be suppressed.
Click to expand...
more republican fuckery...stupid bullshit blown out of context, and shilled by a brazen fascist rich boi....don't waste my time with stupid bullshit like this.
it's not a first amendment issue since twitter is a private business. Biden wasn't president when this happened, and the content that was removed was nudes of Hunter, which shouldn't have been posted according to twitter's own policy...
so much fucking nothing...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Hotrod2 said:
Haters are going to hate. They are also going to deflect rather than discuss the topic at hand.

Musk was not CEO of Twitter when Twitter was censoring free speech. And Twitter was actively suppressing conservative speech. For example: we now know they specifically targeted information about the hunter Biden laptop before Joe Biden's election and even afterwards.

We also know the CEO testified before Congress in 2018 and denied any suppression. Which turns out he perjured himself before Congress. If one would argue he did not know that Twitter was actively suppressing free speech then I would suggest he was a poor CEO at best.

I am interested to see; as more of Twitter's past is unveiled, just how much the alphabet police had to do in this suppression.

While social media is not bound by the First Amendment. Based on the information released about Twitter's past, we see they have selectively targeted conservatives. I understand many liberals would agree with and do agree with the negation and suppression of free speech as evidence by the comments on this thread.

I don't use twitter, because I'm sure there's more haters there than in this political section on roll it up. I do although enjoy the idea that Free Speech should never be suppressed.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you get your news but you should be a bit less naïve when listening to them.

Twitter had and probably still has a policy against showing nude photos of people without their consent. Nude photos of Hunter Biden were in that file.

What right wing radicals (def not conservative) are objecting to is that Twitter followed its own protocols and that Biden's campaign asked them to follow their own protocols.

You may thank me now.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1601396532346953728
Click to expand...
which would be maybe $ 2. per seriously affected person, and 90+% would need to be spent on logistics: getting the goods (uncooked rice, perhaps, or feed corn) to the people. So, a day or two of low-grade food for everybody.

I doubt a meaningful job could be done for $6 trillion, and that is with a magical disappearance of warlords playing siege politics with supplies to remote conflict regions.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
which would be maybe $ 2. per seriously affected person, and 90+% would need to be spent on logistics: getting the goods (uncooked rice, perhaps, or feed corn) to the people. So, a day or two of low-grade food for everybody.

I doubt a meaningful job could be done for $6 trillion, and that is with a magical disappearance of warlords playing siege politics with supplies to remote conflict regions.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that an adequate supply of food is a human right, and we must do all we can to ensure that no one goes to bed hungry, no matter what the cost.

And in fact, the cost might be less than you think.

A study produced in Germany suggests that the cost of ending world hunger within the next 10 years amounts to about $330 billion – $33 billion per year, spread between all the world’s countries. That money, the study says, would go towards increased social aid for poorer people, technological investments to improve agricultural production, and education in training.

While $330 billion may sound like a lot, the cost of not spending money to end world hunger is much steeper: human suffering, increased conflict, and political and economic instability lasting generations.

We can stop world hunger if we choose to. But while the world figures out long-term solutions, there are still people who need our help right now.

www.embracerelief.org

How much would it cost to end world hunger?

How much money would it take to end hunger? It might be less than you think. Join Embrace Relief in helping provide food to families in need all throughout the world.
www.embracerelief.org www.embracerelief.org
.

As a commentator once said. "It's just a thought"
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
The bottom line is that an adequate supply of food is a human right, and we must do all we can to ensure that no one goes to bed hungry, no matter what the cost.

And in fact, the cost might be less than you think.

A study produced in Germany suggests that the cost of ending world hunger within the next 10 years amounts to about $330 billion – $33 billion per year, spread between all the world’s countries. That money, the study says, would go towards increased social aid for poorer people, technological investments to improve agricultural production, and education in training.

While $330 billion may sound like a lot, the cost of not spending money to end world hunger is much steeper: human suffering, increased conflict, and political and economic instability lasting generations.

We can stop world hunger if we choose to. But while the world figures out long-term solutions, there are still people who need our help right now.

www.embracerelief.org

How much would it cost to end world hunger?

How much money would it take to end hunger? It might be less than you think. Join Embrace Relief in helping provide food to families in need all throughout the world.
www.embracerelief.org www.embracerelief.org
.

As a commentator once said. "It's just a thought"
Click to expand...
if it is a modular, scalable approach, it would be interesting to see it done on a pilot scale in Somalia or Tajikistan. That is one-rich-guy money.
 
BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The bottom line is that an adequate supply of food is a human right, and we must do all we can to ensure that no one goes to bed hungry, no matter what the cost.

And in fact, the cost might be less than you think.

A study produced in Germany suggests that the cost of ending world hunger within the next 10 years amounts to about $330 billion – $33 billion per year, spread between all the world’s countries. That money, the study says, would go towards increased social aid for poorer people, technological investments to improve agricultural production, and education in training.

While $330 billion may sound like a lot, the cost of not spending money to end world hunger is much steeper: human suffering, increased conflict, and political and economic instability lasting generations.

We can stop world hunger if we choose to. But while the world figures out long-term solutions, there are still people who need our help right now.

www.embracerelief.org

How much would it cost to end world hunger?

How much money would it take to end hunger? It might be less than you think. Join Embrace Relief in helping provide food to families in need all throughout the world.
www.embracerelief.org www.embracerelief.org
.

As a commentator once said. "It's just a thought"
Click to expand...
Couldn't something like that be adopted through the UN? jc
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
if it is a modular, scalable approach, it would be interesting to see it done on a pilot scale in Somalia or Tajikistan. That is one-rich-guy money.
Click to expand...
It's not being discussed by serious people so I don't know what to say about the "German Study". But I do agree with what I heard one person say in some discussion show. World hunger is a political problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top