Posted on 02/21/2018 9:25:01 AM PST by AU72
Same here; what could sound more "GAY" than "tweeting" on twitter?
“I’m going to suggest that these companies are seriously violating their personal data privacy regulations by examining the content of people’s postings.”
Class action lawsuit.
Well said.
There is a great disparity in the application of the law regarding the free speech clause.
Just to touch on the basics:
Though their client base may only number in the hundreds a mom and pop bakery, a restaurant or a wedding photographer must serve all who wish to buy their products or services.
Even when the business owners disagree with or disapprove of the customer for any reason at all.
And even when there are other comparable businesses providing the same products or services.
But a social media enterprise serving milions upon millions can refuse service to anyone they disagree with or disapprove of for any reason at all.
Even though there are no other comparable options for the customer.
As an example: If your customer base, friends, fans or associates communicate primarilly on Facebook and you are barred there are no other comparable options.
It's something like saying only certain people can have a TV or a telephone, or use UPS or FED-EX or the US Post Office.
But it is much worse.
‘freedom of the press’ is limited to those who own one.
They’re tracking the actions on your twitter account. I have had no problems. I thought the same (like you) originally.
I confess that I have never used Twitter, but it does seem like it - and YouTube - could be competed against.
Note: There is no shame in creating a site which is openly and explicitly conservative - like FR. In fact, as Twitter seems to be tacitly admitting, any “mainstream nonpolitical” site will in fact be “liberal.”Not only is O’Sullivan’s logic sound, but attention must be paid to the incentives of journalism. Journalists are in the business of attracting attention and convincing people to agree with them, for fun and profit. And journalists know - they are taught in Journalism 101 - that bad news sells. People can’t ignore bad news. So, guess what is in the newspaper!O’Sullivan’s First Law
An eternal truth.
By John O’Sullivan EDITOR’S NOTE: This appeared in the October 27, 1989, issue of National Review.Robert Michels — as any reader of James Burnham's finest book, The Machiavellians, knows was the author of the Iron Law of Oligarchy. This states that in any organization the permanent officials will gradually obtain such influence that its day-to-day program will increasingly reflect their interests rather than its own stated philosophy. To take a homely example, congressmen from egalitarian parties somehow end up voting for higher pay and generous expenses for congressmen. We can also catch an ironic echo of Michels's law in Stalin's title of General Secretary, as well as in the fact that powerful mandarins in the British government creep about under such deceptive pseudonyms as "Permanent Under-Secretary." All of which is by way of introducing a new law of my own. My copy of the current Mother Jones (well, it's my job to read that sort of thing — I take no pleasure in it) contains an advertisement for Amnesty International. Now, AI used to be a perfectly serviceable single-issue pressure group which drew the world's attention to the plight of political prisoners around the globe. Many people owe their lives and liberty to it. But that good work depended greatly on AI's being a single-issue organization that helped victims of both left- and right-wing regimes and was careful to remain politically neutral in other respects. Its advertisement in Mother Jones, however, abandons this tradition by calling for an end to the death penalty.
The ad itself, needless to say, is the usual liberal rhubarb. "In American courtrooms," it intones, "some have a better chance of being sentenced to death." That is true: the people in question are called murderers. But Al naturally means something different and more sinister — namely that poor, black, and retarded people are more likely to face the electric chair than other murderers. Let us suppose this to be the case. What follows? A mentally retarded person incapable of understanding the significance of his actions cannot be guilty of murder or of any other crime. A law that punishes him (as opposed to one that confines him for his own and society's safety) is unjust and should be changed — whether or not he faces the death penalty. On the other hand, someone who is guilty of murder may be executed with perfect justice. His race or economic circumstances do not affect the matter at all. The fact that other murderers may obtain lesser sentences does not in any way detract from the justice of his own punishment. After all, some murderers have always escaped scot-free. Would Amnesty have us release the rest on the grounds of equality of treatment? Finally, Amnesty's argument from discrimination could be met just as well by executing more rich, white murderers (which would be fine with me) as by executing no murderers at all. Significantly, Amnesty's list of death-penalty victims" does not include political prisoners. America does not, have political prisoners, let alone execute them. Why, then, Amnesty's campaign on the issue? That is explained by O'Sullivan's First Law:
All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.The people and institutions upon which society depends are venal and weak - and the government doesn’t do enough to correct the problem.That is the message of all commercial mass-market journalism. It also happens to be socialist propaganda. Thus, journalism will always position socialism as “what is,” and any opposition to socialism as “partisan.”So in the real world we do not have nonpartisan, objective journalism. And that includes Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. And Google. And if you are conservative, and try to create a nonpartisan, objective venue along the lines of Twitter et al and eschew explicit conservatism in your mission statement, you will be Alinsky’ed into being no better than the originals. There is nothing for it but to be openly conservative, and proud of it. And if that turns you into Donald Trump instead of George W. Bush, well - it is what it is.
No politician is “required” to use twitter, it is a choice they make.
The terms of service for using twitter are clear and must be agreed to when you sign up. Part of those terms of service you have to agree to include the fact that they can terminate or restrict your account at any time for any or no reason.
Don’t like those terms? Don’t agree to them and don’t use the service.
“I am saying that since it is a business that impacts a critical necessity of our form of government, it should not be allowed to be maintained under the control of a party that is hostile to our form of government.”
It is not a critical necessity for our form of government in any way what-so-ever. It is a convenient communication tool and nothing more than that. Every single person that uses it signed agreeing to the terms of service. Just because they don’t like them now doesn’t mean they can or should be changed.
“Our system of governance is absolutely dependent upon the public having good information. If you feed them only bad information, they will make bad decisions, such as electing a no accomplishment, mouthy, arrogant, affirmative action idiot.”
Twitter is the worst example of providing good communication. There are character limits to the point where only “sound bites” are communicated in the best case.
If you are truly worried about effective and meaningful communication you should be encouraging people NOT to use Twitter.
“Our system of government cannot survive one party control of communications.”
Think I’ll make it my tag line, if you don’t mind.
Yes it is. It is far more impactful upon the election process.
The Jews refusing to listen to Hitler's speeches on the radio did not address the problem that developed as a result of other people listening to Hitler's speeches on the radio.
Yes, it's an extreme example, but it is a relevant one. Saying "don't use the service" does nothing to address this "service" being used to whip up hatred of our side in the manner Hitler whipped up the hatred of the Jews.
To say "don't use the service" is ignoring the very real problem of these "services" manipulating the public to vote or act as they are led, with no one being able to speak reason to them.
It is not a critical necessity for our form of government in any way what-so-ever.
It is currently about the only means by which Trump has been able to communicate the abuses of power of the deep state to the American People. The Left monopolized broadcasting media certainly won't report any of the nefarious doings of their party, and Trump is getting past them through the use of Twitter.
If you are saying it "ought not be" a critical necessity for our form of government, about this I would say you are right, but in our present circumstances, it is very much an essential part of the correct functioning of our government.
Be my guest. I've thought about making my tagline as well.
Postmodernism has revealed the ultimate irony: Never has information been more readily available to the human mind, but instead of an era of light, we find sprouting in our midst a new Dark Ages.
Well said.
I was locked out. When I got back on I had lost over 600 followers overnight.
Bkmk
“We cannot allow wannabe Hitlers to have a one sided conversation with America, lest we find ourselves fighting for our very lives. “
Great posts...
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear” -Orwell
.
Social sites need strict regulation!
.
So they think CWII is so easy to start? There are plenty of purgees who are tech savy and can build web sites. Twitter and You Tube should learn a hard lesson in free market economics ASAP; i.e., competition.
.
Good Friday and Easter are degenerative pagan days that need to be disregarded.
They are an insult to our Savior!
.
“Social sites need strict regulation!”
Is that what they are? Social Sites?
Look at CNN’s ratings.
Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook have to a large extent *become* the press. Millions of people get most or all of their “news” from these sources.
If those become an artificial world permitting only the propaganda of the FOE (forces of evil), then for many that propaganda will become not only the truth, but the only possible truth.
Those designs must be disrupted, and the brainwashing thwarted. At least, the deceived must be made aware that 60 million Americans disagree with them.
Thanks for the link. I’m gone from Twitter now. As for Facebook, I’ve always hated it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.